"I can smell this picture": Bike shop peels away bar tape... finds sweat-corroded handlebar; "No prizes for loyalty": British Cycling's £99 smart light sign-up offer goes down well with existing members; New Van Rysel TT bike + more on the live blog

a4th wrote:

BC do a lot of really good and unglamorous political work at Westminster and never seem to shout about it. There works matters because while Cycling UK are great at a local level they are toxic at Westminster. 

What extraordinary statements!  If BC were doing such sterling work, they'd be shouting it to the heavens, not hiding it under a bushel.  As for CUK being toxic at Westminster, I think the members of the All Party Cycling Group might disagree.

I wonder if Campbell has contributed to the fund?

Car Delenda Est wrote:

".....whereas taking the train nearly twice the distance to Tamworth takes a mere 6 minutes and of course is far more accessable than a bus.

This must be some new definition of "accessible" not in my dictionary.  Train stations are single points, well seperated and at quite a distance from each other: bus stops are much more plentiful, and at much shorter distances.  By any analysis, buses are more accessible than trains.

Different definitions.
A train is level with the platform and the whole length can be accessed by wheelchair/pushchair/bike. Whereas buses can lower themselves but assistance is still needed and only a small portion of the bus can be accessed if at all.

Buses/light rail/trams work best for intracity and poorly for intercity travel. Different horses for different courses.

I see; you meant mobility impaired accessible and I meant generally accessible.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Different definitions. A train is level with the platform and .

this is a sweeping statement, and not universally true. I've seen many posts complaining about lack of wheelchair access onto trains.

eburtthebike wrote:

Car Delenda Est wrote:

".....whereas taking the train nearly twice the distance to Tamworth takes a mere 6 minutes and of course is far more accessable than a bus.

This must be some new definition of "accessible" not in my dictionary.  Train stations are single points, well seperated and at quite a distance from each other: bus stops are much more plentiful, and at much shorter distances.  By any analysis, buses are more accessible than trains.

Well I can't take my bike on a bus, so ...

I came here to say the same.  One of the most densely urbanised part of the country and the line has been the subject of multiple tram campaigns.

Converting to a cylce path seems to be setting an incredibly low bar....

Car Delenda Est wrote:

...the rail lines mothballed under the failed experiment of privatisation should be reopened as rail lines...

Careful what you wish for.  In some places - and knowing how we do this in the UK - it would absolutely be "ditch the active travel and put in trams / guided bus-ways".  You'll then hear "sorry - we had to spend the active travel money on the expensive trams".  (Edinburgh's trams - costing over a billion for not quite one line - are still running at a loss after almost a decade - cycle infra can more than pay for itself).  So this has the potential to kill transport cycling - and indeed some walking - even deader than the present.

Edinburgh has proposals to reclaim disused railway lines to make a tram network.  That's all fine and sensible - power to more people.  However currently the old train lines constitute the majority of "active travel" infra * and indeed the best part in Edinburgh.  That's because they have no interactions with motor vehicles, no traffic lights and form a mini-network.  No, they're far from "perfect" (shared use for a start). However if these are nabbed for the tram as planned:

a) you can guarantee they won't be replaced by suitable alternative routes any time soon.
b) we would lose the "network" - in the UK we don't seem to grasp that this is one of the two most important things for encouraging cycling (a major motor vehicle volume, speed and parking reduction is the other).
c) Those routes - even if done to above the best quality we have in Edinburgh - will most likely be much less convenient.  Shared with motor vehicles in part, full of junctions which force you to wait or are dangerous.  Why?  The other thing we don't yet get in the UK is proper cycling provision at junctions (here's this done in the UK).

* There is the canal path and the Water of Leith but they are definitely in the "recreational" category I'd say.  Nicely meandering, isolated, and at many times good luck making useful progress.  I'm not talking about 15mph or above either!  Or carrying any long / wider cargo.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Careful what you wish for.  In some places - and knowing how we do this in the UK - it would absolutely be "ditch the active travel and put in trams / guided bus-ways".  You'll then hear "sorry - we had to spend the active travel money on the expensive trams".  (Edinburgh's trams - costing over a billion for not quite one line - are still running at a loss after almost a decade - cycle infra can more than pay for itself).  So this has the potential to kill transport cycling - and indeed some walking - even deader than the present.ative routes any time soon.

Indeed.  Most tram systems cost considerably more than forecast and generate less revenue, whereas proper cycle facilities cost relatively tiny amounts with huge benefits.

The real wins come when both are combined, as in many European cities, which have excellent public transport, great cycle facilities and restrictions on cars.  We seem to like promoting that kind of thing, whilst doing exactly the opposite, and then complaining loudly about it not working.

eburtthebike wrote:

The real wins come when both are combined, as in many European cities, which have excellent public transport, great cycle facilities and restrictions on cars.  We seem to like promoting that kind of thing, whilst doing exactly the opposite, and then complaining loudly about it not working.

Yes.  Do both and the combination can replace a major chunk of our current car journeys.  Helpful while we wrestle with the legacy of multiple generations of building our homes, ameneties and lives around expensive, unstainable and ultimately unhelpful mass motoring.

However in the UK we don't associate cycling with words like "strategic" or even "transport".  We don't really have the notion of combining cycling with other modes.  But trams ... are exciting because "lots of money".  Sadly in Edinburgh we're still struggling with not directing cyclists underneath the trams...

chrisonatrike wrote:

  (Edinburgh's trams - costing over a billion for not quite one line - are still running at a loss after almost a decade - cycle infra can more than pay for itself). 

I don't think that is a level playng field, by trams runing at a loss it sounds ike you are only comparing tram fares with running costs, but for cycle tracks to pay for themselves you must be nluding wider societal benefits. Have you factored these into trams running at a loss?

You're quite right.  Someone should run the numbers - like it would make a difference to any argument!

However in Edinburgh now I think we can do a bit of sweeping generalisation since we only have one tram line which runs (currently) only 8.7 miles.  I don't think it would be wild to suggest our *current* shared use paths provide more economic benefit than our current tram here - and for a lot less than 9 million a year maintenance.  (I also don't know what the cost was to convert them from disused railways to paths but I would be considerably staggered even if building them from scratch to the highest standards if it came anywhere near a billion *).

Benefits: trams don't provide health benefits like cycling does.  Our one follows a pretty flat route so doesn't provide "can't get up hills" benefits.  It doesn't go door to door - in fact it's only one line so it doesn't go most places.  Most people are not travelling the full 8.7 miles anyway since a couple are of miles are outside the built up area to the airport.

In fact, the airport bit is possibly the main benefit - as another way for tourists / travellers to get into town with luggage.

The capacity of trams promises wonders.  Better than cycling - indeed the figures look amazing - such that it probably needs a deeper dig.  (I guess "packed tube train" is what people are measuring with the larger numbers - which is certainly not what you get on the Edinburgh tram...)  However they are noticably... not flexible - cycling can continue on to the destinations in all directions.  It can also continue during a pandemic, or if the power fails...

Like with cars - what other "economic benefits" can people think of for trams which don't apply to a properly designed dedicated cycle path (plus facilities where it interacts with motor vehicles)?

Costs: The Edinburgh tram has also seen two fatalities and a *ton* of cycling and possibly pedestrian injuries (compensation measured in millions).  (Would those count as cycling costs too though?  If we didn't have bloody-minded, hubris-filled tram design in Edinburgh and they'd taken advice...) Tram brakes emit particulates.  Our tram is electric e.g. emit elsewhere but that still means a pollution / global warming cost.  Pretty sure the resouce costs of making trams and tramlines outweight those for cycle infra and particularly cycles by an order of magnitude or more.

Cycles will require some parking facilities - overall that might be a greater area than those for trams since the cycle parking will be at both homes and in multiple other destinations.  Luckily this is trivial compared to car parking...

Oh yes - the trams stop motor traffic for quite some time when they turn across roads - they go slower than bikes when doing so!

We might decide this is a public good anyway and we should fund it of course, or note that combined with e.g. cycling it can catalyse much greater benefits.

* The current rate for constructing *Dutch* cycle paths varies of course but a 4m wide cycle path in Gelderland which crosses major roads by tunnels and bridges cost between €300,000 and €1,800,000 per km (source from here).

Agree, no matter how attractive the rail lines may seem for a new cyclepath as they have attracting elevation profiles for lazy people like me, they are too big to be discarded of their original use.

If we want more space for bicycles we should re address the parking space for cars in roads and available road widths. There should be a ridiculously steep increasing parking tax for people with more than one cars and no private parking spot, as well as taxing cars on their dimensions. Five 4m cars are as long as four 5m cars. Both types can fit 5 people. Japanese with Kei-cars have made a good start in their legislation and their auto industry responded accordingly. Increased road widths can make people speed up more, thus being more dangerous, with dubious time gains.

Depends on the aims and the society that we've created. If you're going for leisure and tourism then see places like the Tissington Trail and how that can help a local economy.

I too prefer a tram, train or bus to a car but (and take note HS2) I can ride 13 miles to work quicker than a colleague can do the same trip. They're ahead for 11 of those miles until you hit town centres, business parksm retail parks or train stations.

I also live near an ex-trainline that linked Newcastl Under Lyme (then a short trip from Stoke or Hanley) and Market Drayton (a huge Muller factory). There were a few stops on the line and a now long defunct racecourse. It would be about a 15-20 mile cycle way, totally flat and in a car free environment could get many kids to many schools, people to employment etc. Also links many rural areas, country pubs etc.

What's not to like?

Disused lines within cities?  Depending on the line's route this maybe most useful as a faster and really safe backbone for a cycling network.  (That's what I'm very lucky to enjoy in North-East Edinburgh - well, the backbone bit...)

Former lines between urban areas?  If it would help reduce motor traffic doing inter-urban journeys can we not do both e.g. have a fast cycleway by the side?

I know these can potentially save a ton of money building new rail, but since these routes are by design flat and don't interact with motor traffic we should be seriously considering what gives the most transport value.  Just saying "oh, people drive now - put light rail in and they won't need to" is a fallacy - if the train / tram doesn't go *when* they want, they'll drive.  For short journeys the door-to-door convenience of a cycle is impossible for rail to beat.

Again - best of both worlds is facilitating multi-modal bike-rail-bike or bike-rail-walk journeys.

It's high time HP gave the public what it wants! Where is Son of Pasta Cranks and Pasta Cranks II: The Reunion?

wtjs wrote:

It's high time HP gave the public what it wants! Where is Son of Pasta Cranks and Pasta Cranks II: The Reunion?

You've got to find the right time to do a squirrel sequel. Imagine if Blade Runner 2049 came out in the 80s.