The car driver hates the cyclist who hates the pedestrian who hates the car driver…

Have you heard the one about the chap waiting for the bus when a neighbour drives by? The neighbour sees the chap waiting, pulls up, rolls down the passenger side window and asks him if he needs a lift. “That would be great,” says our chap, “I’m going to the station.” As they set off, the neighbour looks a little smugly at our chap and asks, “So … you been made redundant, then?”

Alright, it isn’t much of a joke. In truth it isn’t any kind of joke, because it actually happened a few weeks ago. In reply, our chap got an incredulous response when he said no, he hadn’t been made redundant, he just chose not to use his car when it wasn’t necessary.

This begs a big question about our perceptions of people, and particularly our perceptions about certain modes of transport. It was Margaret Thatcher, after all, who said that any man who rides a bus to work after the age of 30 can count himself a failure in life. The assumption that someone taking the bus must have lost their job or be a failure says much about the way people view those using public transport or the bike to get around.

There are a host of reasons why these perceptions exist, but the challenge is to debunk them – or at least to stop them from being reinforced.

The figuresThe latest available version of the Department for Transport’s Transport Trends, from 2004, shows how travel behaviour continues to be car dominated. This domination is a function of the simple economics of affordability. In 1980, 41% of households did not have access to a car. But by 2002 this proportion had fallen to only 26% – partly explained by the fact that the cost of motoring, in real terms, remained at or below its 1980 level. Despite recent fuel price rises, motoring continues to represent a smaller proportion of disposable income.

In contrast, public transport fares have risen, in real terms, by more than 30% for rail, bus and coach fares.

It is difficult to see how the government’s plans that there should be less congestion on the highway network, and more growth in the use of public transport, walking and cycling, all enshrined in the Ten-year Transport Plan published in 2000, and updated in the 2004 white paper The Future of Transport – a network for 2030, can be realised. The truth is that the trends in personal travel remain firmly in the opposite direction.

So, is this a hopeless situation? One where there is little chance of preventing the country grinding to a halt, bumper to bumper in shiny metal boxes?

Fortunately there are examples of good, successful schemes that demonstrate the potential for providing people with a workable and practical alternative. These schemes don’t challenge the rights of families to own and use a car, but emphasise the choices that can be made to use other modes.

Public transport

Encouraging the use of public transport is all about empowerment and ensuring that the passenger is informed, and therefore knows exactly what to expect from the journey. Operators can easily slide into a position where they operate the system to their advantage and convenience, not the passenger’s. A good example of this exists on a local bus service in Kent (see “Don’t miss the bus”).

We need to follow the examples of some of our near European neighbours. Between 1980 and 1998, the average distance travelled by bus per person in the UK declined more than a fifth. During the same period, demand for bus travel in most EU countries grew – Austria and Sweden were up more than 20%, Denmark more than 40%, and Italy more than half.

At the most basic level, there is a need for more frequent and reliable bus services if people are to switch. Passengers will also need clean, pleasant interchange facilities to allow them to complete non-radial journeys into towns and cities.

At a broad policy level there is a thrust towards mechanisms such as “quality bus contracts” (which guarantee service), the broadening of schemes for concessionary fares, and the development of incentive regimes for operators through local transport plans. These are all well and good, and we need organisations such as the Department for Transport, local authorities and the Commission for Integrated Transport to be on the case to ensure their delivery. And there needs to be a complementary project to inform, educate and reward potential passengers on an individual basis, too.

The internet is terrific at opening up accessibility to bus services – but not everyone has access to this, or the time to search out the information.

Whereas ideas to reduce car usage invariably rely on measures targeted at individual drivers, there are few schemes that take the same approach for public transport users.

One example of what can be achieved is in Cambridge, where there has been a remarkable renaissance in bus use between 2001 and 2004 – an increase in patronage of 45%. This has been achieved by simple measures: the introduction of new vehicles, a simpler, more legible network and more straightforward fares. Critically, the scheme also includes turn-up-and-go services with a 10-minute turnaround, and a high-level marketing and information campaign to target users directly.

Putting highway schemes in their place

From a regeneration and development standpoint, support for public transport services – especially buses – could be far more common. The extent to which planning and highway authorities would accept bus network improvement in lieu of highway schemes remains to be seen. Until there is a general acceptance that highway improvements should be deferred until late in the development process – and only then if they are really necessary – and that public transport support should be at the expense of highway works, things are unlikely to change.

There is an increasing need for highway authorities to take a holistic view of transport in respect of development proposals – and accept that the answer to a highway capacity problem may lie in a new bus service – instead of, rather than as well as. Only when there is the perception that public transport is more important than the car and that it can solve the problems created by the car will we make real progress.

A considerable leap of faith is required here. But without that leap, the situation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Traffic from developments use cars, because they have been treated to the extra capacity to accommodate them. Meanwhile, the subsidised buses run almost empty until the subsidy runs out.

Local authorities must take the leap of faith – but developers must be prepared to support proper public transport at a sufficient level of service and for a sufficient period of time for it to be effective.

Maybe it is time to ensure that those who design cycle routes are cyclists themselves

Cycling

Encouraging the use of cycling for a proportion of people from a given area should be as easy as discouraging car use – there are no third-party organisations to involve, only the individual making the travel choice. Hence, simple measures could make a big difference.

Much of the rest of Europe has higher proportions of cycling than in the UK. Even setting aside the Dutch examples, cycling is a regular mode of transport for many people on the Continent. Here is the share of journeys made by bicycle:

• United Kingdom – 2.3%
• Sweden – 10%
• Germany – 11%
• Denmark – 18%
• Netherlands – 27%

Bicycle purchase (per 1000 population) is another interesting indicator:

• United Kingdom – 37
• Sweden – 49
• Germany – 63
• Denmark – 71
• Netherlands – 88

Now, some of the reasons for this are related to factors such as topography, or density and layout of cities and the influences of differing post-war planning policies. But not all are related to this.

In Europe, cycling is perceived as a viable mode of transport, whereas in the UK it is seen far more readily as a leisure pursuit. The designs of most cycle facilities and cycle tracks in the UK are done by transport planners and engineers who do not themselves ride a bike.

Can you think of a single field of design where the designers have no direct knowledge of, nor do they consult the end-users of, the product being designed? Even within the transport planning and engineering profession, though it is accepted that there is a need for public transport planners, safety audit advisers and myriad other specialists, there is no equivalent for cycle designers.

For those of us who combine being a regular cyclist and a transport planner, there is the unnerving experience of sitting in meetings where some total fallacies about the needs of cyclists have been discussed at length and even “resolved” without reference to actual experience.

Maybe it is time that we ensure that those who design cycle facilities are first, cyclists and second, pragmatic about the “design guides”.

In fact existing design guides make a nonsense of the provision of cycling facilities.

The picture above shows an urban cycle path where cyclist Vicki McCreary was recently killed in a collision with a bus. Such unusual design solutions for cyclists are typical, but with little consistency they lead to confusion for drivers and cyclists alike. Such an approach would never be acceptable in the case of motor vehicle highway design – it would be rejected out of hand.

This shifting of perception has to occur from the top down – from the authorities, developers and designers of urban spaces.

If people are to be encouraged to cycle, then designers need to address the genuine concerns of real cyclists. These are outlined in “5 points to consider when designing cycleways”, right.

Cycle paths can increase accidentsA study in Holland revealed that when cycle paths are built alongside existing roads, the number of accidents rises 35% and the number of deaths and injuries 30%. A staggering 44% of the accidents occur at crossroads. The researchers concluded that the results are down to the fact that towns were not designed to tackle the increase in traffic they are subjected to – and cyclists and pedestrians bear the brunt.

So, where does this leave us in terms of encouraging cycling in regeneration areas? First, the design of the highway network needs to take cycling seriously – that means designing it in integrally, not as an afterthought. It means giving serious consideration to mandatory, on-carriageway routes, of sufficient width to provide safety, and available all year round.

Second, it means linking the origins and destinations that are within range in a connected fashion – on-site this should be possible, but off-site it may require the designer to have a clipboard and bicycle and go to the street in question. It has been said: “A cycle route that stops short of the destination isn’t a cycle route.”

Support for a local cycle shop could be another pragmatic step too – if someone is to choose to cycle, they don’t simply need a free bike to encourage them. They need some

back-up advice, they need helmets, lights, locks and panniers, and they need support for servicing and repairs. This holistic approach, with appropriate promotion and good design, could start to lift cycling from a pursuit to a mode of transport.

Who knows, maybe one day it will be acceptable for me to arrive at a business meeting in tight-fitting clothing, slightly out of breath and clutching a bicycle pump without anyone batting an eyelid.

Don’t miss the bus – Power to the passenger

One Kent bus service runs throughout the day, every 15 minutes – it is close to being a “turn-up-and-go” service where passengers can ignore the timetable and simply turn up at the nearest stop. Even better, the stops in the town centre are blessed with real-time information boards, which tell passengers exactly when the next service can be expected.

Real-time information delivers empowerment: you are presented with choices when you arrive at the stop. You can wait out the time left before the bus arrives, you can do something else with the time (buy a paper or nip to the post office, say), you can see that a slightly later service gives you the chance to go off to do something else, or you can decide to walk to the next stop, or even call a taxi.

However, what is less acceptable is that this same local bus service, on some occasions, diverts off its route and takes everyone on board to the depot, on a less than attractive industrial estate. The passengers sit and wait, and then a new driver arrives, straps himself in and the bus goes on its way. The bus operator would surely say that this was okay, because the timetable shows that it takes an extra five minutes to complete the journey.

However, the passenger’s response is that operators need to get real about this. The service is for his or her benefit, not theirs, and a nasty feeling that your time is being wasted to benefit someone else, simply isn’t acceptable.

5 points you should consider when designing cycleways

1 There are as many different journey purposes for cyclists as there are for car drivers – hence, they need cycle “motorways” for commuting, cycle “back roads” for leisure, and sensible, consistent links between places they actually need to go.
2 “Cyclists dismount” signs should be abandoned – when have they ever actually been observed in practice? In truth cyclists will stay on their bikes on the footway – and the majority will realise that the footway is narrow and ride with appropriate consideration. Perhaps the right approach would be to follow the model used at sea, where “power gives way to sail”. All that is needed in practice is a sign that says, “Cyclists – pedestrians have PRIORITY”.
3 Cycle tracks that are divided from footpaths by a white line are a waste of the line and the red surfacing. Pedestrians simply ignore the designation, and if they have a pushchair, toddler or dog, then the likelihood they will overstep the line rises to a near certainty.
4 Cycle facilities that are off the carriageway are effectively seasonal – they don’t get gritted, and so are impassable in winter weather. In these circumstances the cyclist will stay on the side of the road – it’s safer.
5 A further issue with cycle tracks along the footway is the need to give way to side road traffic – and register every driveway that the track crosses as a potential hazard, with a need for an instantaneous stop. As a consequence, where a road has numerous side turnings or driveways, the cyclist is as likely to stay on the carriageway.