Seville: A Dense and Consistent Cycling Network

One thing that UK towns and cities seem to focus on is routes. Whether they be branded as 'Cycle Super Highways' in London, or 'City Ways' in Glasgow, the focus is generally on moving people (often targeted at commuters) from their home to their office. Seville doesn't have individual branded routes. Instead, there's a dense network of separated cycling infrastructure, which, for the most part, follows main roads for cars.

Here we can see the the Seville cycling network. Notice the relatively high density of cycling infrastructure. What you can't see from that map is the consistency of the network. For better or worse, the vast majority of cycle lanes are to be found bi-directional on one side of the road. Unlike if I look at a map of cycle facilities in the UK, I know that the infrastructure marked green on this map will

• be genuinely 8-80 safe
• not require me to 'keep my wits about me' or cause me stress
• not force me to decide whether to try to enter an ASL (there are zero ASLs for cycles here)
• not force me to decide whether to 'take the lane' or 'hug the kerb' (since it's all separated)
• ensure I am separated from motor vehicles by space or time at all times

All those obstacles to cycling are completely eliminated on the network, which, as you can see, covers a pretty dense grid. 

With London allowing so-called CS1 to be included in their cycle network, even by sticking to marked routes I don't know that my journey will meet the above criteria. Similarly, Edinburgh's Quality Bike Corridor meets absolutely none of those criteria.

What Seville, on the marked network, has done very successfully is provide a consistently-good network for cycling. Note that I'm not saying that it's perfect or even excellent, but consistently-good. And I think that consistency has been important to the relative success cycling enjoys here.

As always, photos say more than words, so here are a bunch taken on the network shown in the map above.

This is the second in a series of (long overdue) posts about cycling in Seville. Find the first here. Stay tuned for more! Follow me on Twitter, @justacwab

Community Links Plus in Renfrewshire

Community Links Plus

A bit of background to start us off for a post about more disappointment regarding cycling in Renfrewshire. Sustrans Scotland run a program called Community Links, which asks local authorities to bid to get funding to do things to benefit walking and cycling in their area. Although administered by Sustrans (a charity) the money comes from the Scottish Government, with local authorities matching the funds provided.

This year, Sustrans and the Scottish Government have upped the ante with 'Community Links Plus'. It's looking for projects on a bigger scale, with the website mentioning stating that they asked for proposals that would be 'game-changers for active travel in Scotland', 'big, bold and innovative ideas'. There is, inevitably, a much more limited pot of funding than one would like and of the ten shortlisted projects, only one or two will be given funding.

On learning that Renfrewshire had been shortlisted to get funding for such a scheme I was rather pleased. Seeing that it was to connect my hometown with neighbouring areas, I was delighted. "Developing a strategic cycle route to link Bishopton, Inchinnan, Erskine, Renfrew, Paisley and Glasgow airport," as the summary says, sounds fantastic. These are towns and villages not far from each other with very poor links at present - only Paisley and Bishopton have a train station, the road from Bishopton to Erskine is national speed limit with no cycle provision, the road from Inchinnan to Renfrew a 50mph busy road with no cycle provision. Renfrew and Inchinnan Business Park are (separately) linked to Glasgow Airport by very poor cycling provision involving things like shared use paths, off-road dirt tracks and on road lanes.

Unfortunately, the plan being presented is so limited in scope that I can't imagine it would achieve very much at all, were it to be implemented.

Renfrewshire's Proposal

As you can see from the proposal, the links being proposed only enable a very few trips to be made by bike. Despite the summary mentioning Renfrew and Paisley, these don't feature at all. The council may argue that Glasgow Airport is already linked to Renfrew and Paisley, so they're included by proxy, but that would be absolute nonsense since those links are so substandard.

There are three phases being proposed. Firstly, linking the edge of Bishopton to the Red Smiddy Roundabout. This is a 60mph road that barely has a usable pavement at present. It could certainly do with cycling facilities

A8 Greenock Road between Bishopton and the Red Smiddy Roundabout

The second phase takes us from the Red Smiddy eastwards, towards Inchinnan. Curiously, it gives up before reaching Inchinnan itself, stopping at the junction with Inchinnan Drive. By continuing another 1.3 miles, the segregated route would have passed Inchinnan and reached the edge of Renfrew. This is perhaps the most bizarre omission of the proposals. As it stands, the only beneficiary here would be people going to Inchinnan Business Park from Bishopton. That's a massive missed opportunity. It's also worth noting that the part that isn't in the proposal is on two frequent bus routes and, anecdotally, I'm quite sure there are currently more people cycling (mostly on the pavement) and walking on this part.

Cycle facilities are being proposed here

But further up the same road, there'll be nothing

Finally, the third phase goes south from the Red Smiddy towards Glasgow Airport and the St James' Interchange (a massive roundabout above the M8). Much of this already has a shared use path, which is quite inadequate and segregated cycling here would certainly be an upgrade.

However, dumping cyclists onto the St James Interchange would be some sort of a sick joke and the current path to the airport is little more than a dirt track - a dirt track that these plans don't appear to address.

The existing 'shared use path' to Glasgow Airport, doesn't appear set to be upgraded

The St James' Interchange. The proposed cycle infra finishes just north of this.

Linking Communities?

An inevitable retort to this blogpost is that we have to start somewhere, to which I absolutely agree. Rome wasn't built in a day, and a network of segregated cycle infrastructure accompanied by minor roads of low traffic and low speeds won't come overnight either. However, these plans would enable very few journeys to be made by bike compared to other possibilities within Renfrewshire. These proposals seem like a very odd place to start. The project is called 'Community Links', yet I don't see how any two communities will in fact be linked!

It's fair to say that journeys between Bishopton and Inchinnan Business Park would be enabled, and it's quite possible that some commuters that travel by car could be tempted onto their bikes and any current bike users made safer. It's also possible that some people living to the west of Inchinnan will be able to cycle to Bishopton train station, giving them a useful link onto the rail network (although there's already a bus link from Inchinnan to Paisley and Glasgow). People in Inchinnan wanting to cycle the few miles into Renfrew - out of luck. People in Erskine, Paisley and Renfrew wanting to go anywhere - out of luck.

Something? Yes. Game-changing? I'm sorry, but I really don't see it. Compared to some of the other plans proposed by other councils, it seems Renfrewshire has come up short.

Find an overview of the 10 proposed projects at http://www.sustrans.org.uk/scotland/what-we-do/communities/grants-community-infrastructure

Renfrewshire Cycling Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/renfrewshirecycling

Follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/justacwab

Meeting with the Council

Following from my previous blog Renfrewshire Council - Delusional?, I e-mailed a link to the Councillor involved in the blog and the leader of the council. To my surprise, I was invited to a meeting with them both which took place this morning. I am not in either councillor's ward, so I appreciated them agreeing to meet.

In the end, Cllr Gilmour couldn't make it due to an urgent situation, and sent his apologies, so the meeting was just with Cllr Mark MacMillan, leader of Renfrewshire Council.

I had a presentation prepared, which I had hoped to start the meeting with. However, Cllr MacMillan started by discussing the aforementioned blogpost and questioning whether it was 'fair', primarily due to the cuts the council's budget has seen. I stood my ground, but it set the tone for a meeting that was livelier than I'd anticipated.

Renfrewshire Cycling Presentation

I'll split this post into a few themes.

Money

Perhaps unsurprisingly, money was where the discussion kept returning to. The council, like all across Scotland, has had its budget cut by Holyrood over the last few years. Cllr MacMillan argued that Renfrewshire has been disproportionately hit. Of course, it's a position I sympathise with, but regardless of how big or small the budget is it'll always have priorities. My argument is, of course, that cycling should absolutely be a high priority, certainly within the transport budget.

My point that the cost of doing nothing about cycling is high (struggling town centres and health issues) was taken on board I think, but the statistic of £4 gain to the NHS for every £1 spent on cycling was deemed problematic since the council has to spend the £1 on cycling, yet it's the Scottish Government that fund the health service and so see that £4 dividend. Again, I sympathise with the problem, but it's a shame that this kind of bureaucracy stands in the way of investment.

CAPS 10% Target

The Cycling Action Plan for Scotland's 10% modal share by 2020 target was dismissed by the Councillor as not being worth the paper it's written on, since it hasn't been backed by money to make it happen. It's a position I'd struggle to disagree with - targets are easy to set and forget, and this certainly looks like one of them. No wonder the Scottish Government are back-pedalling on it, with the language of 'shared vision'. Of course, that shouldn't stop campaigners talking about it loudly, as Darkerside rightly says. I think it's fair to say that the odds on Renfrewshire meeting that target are zero.

'Raising the Profile'

The council leader talked a number of times about raising the profile of cycling, through mass participation events and the like. I argued, strongly I hope, that people who cycle on closed roads during such events will surely not cycle on Renfrewshire's roads as long as they are hostile to cycling and so won't be converted to cycling for everyday journeys. I've got no problem with sport cycling, the Tour de France etc, but they're as relevant to everyday cycling as Formula 1 is to driving to work.

He talked about London's increase in cycling, which I argued is more due to 'sticks' (congestion charge, cost of public transport) than 'carrots' (good facilities for cycling). I argued that for cycling to truly take off, we need both carrots and sticks - he said that he envisioned more carrots in Renfrewshire, but not sticks. I think that's a pity - we need both.

Benefits for Towns

One point I made was rebuffed very quickly - that cycling would help revive our town centres. He claimed that Paisley town centre provides well for pedestrians (I largely agree), perhaps over-provides (I disagree entirely), but that people want places to park and so are going to out of town centres such as Silverburn and Braehead. I'm not sure I articulated my arguments against this point well enough, to be honest. Suffice to say, all evidence suggests that provision for cycling benefits towns and cities.

We also spoke briefly about Renfrew, which he said had been recently remodelled as a shared space, yet no-one seems to like the design. I don't like the design - it's crap for pedestrians, crap for cyclists, crap for drivers, crap for businesses and good for those who like fancy paving. Its fundamental problem is that it's not only a town centre, but also a through route for people travelling from Erskine/Bishopton/Inchinnan towards the eastbound M8, and a through route for people travelling from Paisley to Braehead. That traffic is hurting Renfrew, and different coloured paving has unsurprisingly done absolutely nothing to fix that. Hopefully the acknowledgement that this scheme hasn't been well-received means we won't be seeing more of the same, but nevertheless it's a lot of money that was blown only a few years ago (remember, we don't have money).

Clyde Valley Investment

The proposed investment in infrastructure across the Clyde Valley was brought up a number of times, in terms of it helping modal share shift away from private cars towards public transport and active travel. It was claimed that the plan includes cycling at its core, not an add-on (I think we agreed that a lick of paint on the road wasn't terribly useful). Without having seen the plans (they're not in the public domain as far as I'm aware) it's hard to comment on their quality and to what extent they'll benefit cycling.

However, this optimism was mitigated by the mention of road-building potentially being part of the plans, since the M74 extension hasn't alleviated traffic as expected (more roads, more car journeys - should surprise no one). I pushed this one quite hard, that building more roads leads to more traffic. He argued that the new Fastlink buses will need roads, but that they won't be dedicated to public transport. I think there's a very big 'watch this space' on this topic.

Working Together

The final, and positive point, is that the council leader agreed that the council should be working with and consulting people when making plans, rather than spending money on cycling facilities for people like me to then write blogs about it, claiming that they're crap and seeing no modal shift. He's agreed to keep in touch, and I hope I can positively contribute to any dialogues.

Conclusion

We spoke for a full hour, yet I feel there are issues we didn't manage to fully address, and I think the discussion could have easily lasted another. Ultimately, I think the leader of the council would like more cycling in Renfrewshire, but I'm not convinced that he's willing to give it the funding and priority it deserves. There are a lot of players in getting cycling modal share up, including the UK Government, Scottish Government and local government: campaigners need to be applying pressure and winning the arguments with all of them. Unfortunately, it's all too easy for local government to blame national government, and vice-versa, with no accountability when targets are inevitably not met. 

If you haven't already, please consider shaping the Renfrewshire Cycling Campaign, write to your local councillors about #space4cycling and take a look at the excellent Pedal on Parliament and Cycling Embassy of Great Britain websites, as well as the City Cycling Glasgow forum (thanks to members there for help in making the presentation there, especially joel_c and sallyhinch). I tweet about cycling too.

Edinburgh's Quality Bike Corridor

Not worth the paint

There has been a lot of talk recently about why painted bike lanes are largely, well, not worth the paint they're painted with. This has largely been prompted by the tragic deaths on London's blue-paint network, also known as Barclays Cycle Superhighways. There's a good analysis of why paint (in any colour) is not a solution here.

Today, I'm going to be looking at Edinburgh's flagship infrastructure. The 'Quality Bike Corridor' (QBC). Why now? Because if I cycle to work (Brompton pending - I'm currently walking) it'll largely be on this route. And because I walk along this road every day and witness what a disaster it it. Finally, because a lot of cycling money was spent on it, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen again.

This scheme has been covered by others before, doubtless better - firstly here and also here.

Laudable aims

The choice of route for the QBC seems very sound. It connects two campuses of Edinburgh University, approximately 3km apart. Students are great targets for cycling and 3km is a nice distance to cycle - about half an hour to walk, or 12 minutes on a bike. Two trips a day make a 3 hour a week time saving. With the right approach, this could have been a massive success. 

There's also a primary school along the route (Sciennes School), so a great opportunity to encourage cycling to school. Finally, since one of the campuses is next to the city centre, it's perfect to connect parts of South Edinburgh (eg Blackford, Mayfield and Newington) to Princes Street and Waverley Station.

You can view the route here, on Google Maps.

The Problem

So many, it's hard to know where to start. Let's take a look at a few pictures.

Can't see the QBC? You're looking at it!

Unfortunately, there's no room for a cycle lane on both sides of the road here. Well, certainly not where you have a right turn lane and a traffic island which usefully doubles up as a dangerous pinch point. This is a great example of prioritising motorists (those behind someone turning right) over cyclists. If we don't prioritise cycling on a flagship scheme, when do we? Disgraceful, and a potential accident spot.

Just duck under the van!

What do you mean your granny wouldn't cycle here?

I didn't bother to check if this parking was legal - there's a fair amount of legal and illegal parking on the QBC. Cyclists are forced into the main carriageway frequently. It's a recipe for disaster. Edinburgh Council's FAQ on the QBC asks, "Why are people parking on the route?'. The answer is interesting, in that instead of focusing on safety, it focuses on speed. They've missed the point. "Cycle lanes provide a fast way of getting along the route. These are protected from parking by yellow lines during the day – the time when road traffic is heaviest."

Of course, parking on a bike route shouldn't just be discouraged by law (and certainly not only at certain times!!!), but made impossible or completely unnecessary by infrastructure.

From  Cyclists in the City - how it's being done in New York

The above picture shows how it should be done - notice the parked cars are between the bikes and moving traffic - actually increasing the cyclists' safety. Also, the bikes are travelling the opposite direction to the parking, so the chance of 'dooring' is reduced. The excellent buffer area helps here too.

Roadworks Ahead - Cyclists squeeze by

This is an easy-fixed problem (move the damn sign), but it is a good indicator that the council don't take the QBC seriously. They'd never block 70% of a car lane with a sign, so why do they think it's acceptable to do it to cyclists?

From Google Maps

Finally, this surprisingly dangerous junction. There are a few similar examples. Notice the widening of the car lane just before the junction, so that it's wider than required for one vehicle, but not quite wide enough for two. It seems drivers frequently cut across the cycle lane, to undertake vehicles turning right or to turn left themselves. The nearest near miss I've seen on the QBC was at a junction of this style, where an undertaking car had to stop very suddenly to avoid a cyclist on their left. It's not good enough.

I've seen some brave parents ride to school with their children on this road. I've seen them overtake a parked lorry, then be overtaken by a double decker bus. To be frank, my heart has been in my mouth watching on a few occasions. I love cycling - heck, I write a blog about it! - but I don't think I could do it if I had kids of my own. It'd be walking, or yet another car on the school run. And that's sad.

Compromises

As you can doubtless see, this flagship scheme is full of compromises. Motor traffic is almost never impeded. The closest thing to inconveniencing motor traffic is a 20mph limit along part of the route, which appears to be almost universally ignored. Perhaps the lanes have been narrowed, but they're not terribly narrow now. The aforementioned FAQ mentions this issue:

"Why aren’t the cycle lanes continuous all along the route?

Some sections of road along the route are not wide enough for cycle lanes in both directions, even when the width of the road for car users has been reduced. Where this is the case we have introduced a 20mph speed limit (see below)."

As we know, 20mph are a good thing for cycling. But in this case, I'd argue that they're useless. Firstly, because the volume of traffic is still far too high. The start of this blogpost gives some idea of the number of vehicles that we should consider too high, even with a 20mph limit.

The second reason they're useless here, is that they're widely ignored and there doesn't appear to be any enforcement of them. You could call it box-ticking. That's what it seems like.

Essentially, when we have to compromise, it's people on bikes that lose out. Given that we're trying to encourage cycling and discourage use of polluting, traffic-causing, obesity-raising vehicles, that doesn't make sense to me.

Welcomed by...

SPOKES, who are the most prominent cycle campaign in Edinburgh responded to the proposals quite tamely. You can read it yourself here. They do suggest improvements, but this is not the complete rejection of a waste of money that this scheme deserved. Again, I'll link to a spot-on blogpost about responses to the QBC.

The solution 

The real solution is easy. Perhaps not politically, but in terms of having an environment where cycling is safe and feels safe. Even more frustratingly, Spokes know the solution - one of their members posted it on a comment on a local councillor's blog! I'll quote:

Biggest problem is car parking - tackling this needs political courage - that is the main reason why QBiC was too timid - it's a decision for the politicians, not the officers! Another powerful but politically difficult option would be to not allow through motor traffic in the narrow section - or make it bus/bike/walk only - after all, there are 2 other parallel north-south roads available for cars!

There are two parallel roads. Let's look at one on Street View.

The road cars should be on, from Google Maps

The bus lanes are only active during the morning and evening weekday peaks. This road (the name changes a few times, but the configuration is the same) runs along pretty much all of the QBC. The fact that we're having to debate this is insane. Motor traffic goes here, cyclists and access go on the QBC. Enforce it through bollards, or making the QBC road alternating one-way for vehicular traffic.

This option should have been top of the agenda, yet it wasn't even on the agenda? Why not?

Here's a very rough diagram to show the idea.

Simple Solution? Arrows are on the QBC route.

Making the street (designated the QBC) alternating one way would give extra road space (to be given to high-quality cycle tracks) and massively reduce the amount of traffic on the road. 

Nervous about it? Want to try before you buy? Just get some no-entry and one way street signs and a bit of paint. Try it for 3 months, 6 months, whatever. This fantastic TED talk shows how New York do things quickly and cheaply with paint first. When they can show that the new design works better, they can make the changes permanent. If the data shows otherwise, it's easy to rollback and lessons can be learned.

Let's not waste another £650,000 (including money from the Scottish Government and Sustrans) on rubbish like this again.

Cycling Utopia... In Scotland?

There is a place, only 40 miles from Glasgow. A place where families cycle together; where the bikes have baskets; where cars give space to cyclists (who ride two or three abreast on roads); where few wear Lycra and helmets aren't the norm.

The place is in fact an island, about 10 miles in circumference and on the Clyde. Technically the Isle of Cumbrae, but better known as the name of its only town: Millport.

Cycling on Cumbrae

People, main from Glasgow, travel to Cumbrae for day trips and longer holidays. It's a picturesque island, and one of the most popular activities is cycling round it. There are three bike hire shops, and they do a very good trade on a hot day! The perimeter road is almost flat and some of the views are fantastic.

I feel a bit strange taking photos of strangers while cycling, so I missed my chance to take one of the dog in basket. You'll have to just take my word on that one! Here are some that I did take.

Sharing the road. Lycra-clad cyclist, cyclist with a childseat, walkers and a van

Lots of parked cars, but very few actually moving

A family 'taking the lane'!

I saw more kids' trailers in a day here than in 10 years in Glasgow

Almost everyone (on a sunny day!) arrives at the Fintry Bay Tearooms on foot or by bike

Another picture of Fintry Bay. Image from http://www.millport.org/place/fintry-bay-tearoom/

Explaining the phenomenon

Why do so many people cycle on Cumbrae? Why do families feel safe cycling on a road (that has a speed limit of 60mph for the most part, and a recommended maximum of 30mph throughout)? Can we replicate it elsewhere?

A big part of why cycling on Cumbrae is a joy (and it is - at any speed) is that the number of cars is tiny. The island is very small (as I said, its circumference is about 10 miles) and there is only one main town. A bus meets the ferry from the mainland, taking passengers the 4 miles trip from 'Cumbrae Slip' to 'Millport'. Unless you are transporting a lot of goods, or perhaps someone with mobility problems, there is no need for a car on the island. That fact, combined with the ferry charges for cars (usually £19.65 return, plus normal passenger charges for each person in the car - effectively a congestion charge) mean taking a car onto the island just doesn't make sense in most cases.

While I don't believe in the principle of 'safety in numbers' in general (it doesn't seem to be holding true in London, sadly), there is an element of it here. The car drivers know they're in the minority, and almost without exception act accordingly. The fact that the people on bikes are largely families including children doubtless affects their behaviour too. There is no comparison to the stories of 'road wars' and 'Lycra louts' in Surrey. Finally, most people are on holiday (tourism is pretty much Millport's raison d'être) which seems to also put people in a calmer mood!

Suppressed Demand

What Millport does perfectly, is debunk the argument that British people, Scottish people, Glaswegians or whoever don't want to cycle. Like the 'SkyRides', it shows that people will make a big effort to go somewhere to cycle in (subjective and objective) safety. A good overview of suppressed demand here.

I can't (and don't) believe that these same people, most of whom have travelled about 40 miles and taken a ferry to come to Millport wouldn't cycle to the shops, to schools, to their friends' houses day in, day out if they felt as safe. 

Like it or not, we can't reduce traffic levels in cities and towns across the country to Millport's levels. In that sense, it is a special case. Normal people will take the lane here, but they won't (and don't) elsewhere. The only way to experience this level of subjective safety is Dutch quality segregated cycling infrastructure. If it comes, really comes, I've no doubt it'll be used.

Cycling in Renfrewshire

I'm back in (surprisingly) sunny Erskine, Renfrewshire for this blog post. As an avid follower of many UK based cycling blogs, where there is some (if certainly not enough) political will for change, up here we're still way-behind. I'll try to find Renfrewshire Council's cycling strategy and look at why normal people don't cycle normal journeys here.

Strategy

To get started, I thought I'd look for Renfrewshire Council's cycling strategy, or some similar documentation. In the 'Transport and Streets' section of their website, there are sections about 'Parking and car parks', 'Road safety', 'Winter Gritting' and 'Public transport' among others, but no mention of cycling (or, indeed, walking). In fact, cycling information is to be found under 'Leisure and culture'/'Parks and recreation'. Is going to work 'leisure' for you?

There are mentions of cycle tourists, BMX, a 9 year old document 'Renfrewshire Outdoor Access Strategy', featuring this classic picture. In the intervening 9 years, that paint has faded to almost nothing.

Shared use, a dismount sign and a helmet. Yep, we've got it all here.

Making progress. Image from Google Street View

(Sources: [1], [2])

There's one positive mention of an off-road path to a school for cycling (sounds promising, haven't seen it personally), but the other cycling links include the 'Bike Helmet Initiative Trust'. 

In the section, 'Glasgow International Airport', there's this gem: "The suggested routes are largely on road and can be busy, particularly at peak hours. Cyclists should take care using the routes. Please also note that the routes are not signposted and that you should use the map to navigate your way." (Source)

Car Sickness

Perhaps the most frustrating thing is that there is so much car dependancy and it's so unnecessary. The town I'm from, Erskine, is pretty small. A few measurements on Running Map show the maximum distance North to South is 1.5 miles, West to East is 2.2 miles. Yet the town's biggest shopping area (Bridgewater) has got two large car parks (space for far more than 100 cars) and no more than 15 cycle parking spaces.

The nearest big shopping centre (Braehead, among the biggest shopping centres in Scotland) is as little as 4.7 miles away, the next town, Renfrew, is 4 miles away, Paisley (Scotland's biggest town) is 5.7 miles away and the nearest train station (with fast, direct trains to Glasgow) is 3.5 miles away (featuring 192 car parking spaces and space for about 10 bikes).

All but one of the journeys mentioned are less than 5 miles. The excellent 'As Easy As Riding A Bike' blog focuses on these kind of journey lengths in this post. In the Netherlands, 34% of trips of less than 5 miles are made by bike. In the UK, 2%.

I don't think the people of Erskine are lazy. I really don't. Nor do I imagine they want to be stuck in traffic or suffer from health problems due to inactivity. However, the infrastructure opposes cyclists and cycling between Erskine and nearby towns and villages is subjectively unsafe. Cycling just doesn't seem like an option to most people. That's why people aren't cycling to work, to the shops, to meet friends as they would do in the Netherlands.

Renfrew is a real bottleneck for traffic, with frequent delays for Erskine commuters. There are too many cars. However, one of Erskine's local councillors has a solution - build another road! No mention of cycling (or even public transport or carsharing).

Space For Cycling

Of course, we know that unlike the Dutch, we simply don't have space for cycling! Renfrewshire is no exception. I'm going to focus on the journey from my house to Renfrew. At 4.6 miles, it should be a great candidate to cycle. Google Maps is our friend. I'll follow the route shown below. I'm not choosing this route because it's exceptional, rather because it's very typical. It's a route I do from time to time, to go to my local bank and barbers.

http://goo.gl/maps/jccWM

From Linburn, we first hit a road with a 60mph limit and no facilities for cycling. I'd guess most people will give up before getting to this point. I find myself riding defensively and faster than I'd like. It's not fun. A child doing it alone? No way.

http://goo.gl/maps/4HHNO

Then, this roundabout. Two approaches are 60mph roads, the other two 50mph. All approaches are two lane. As you can imagine, a lot of people travel through it pretty fast. Going straight ahead, we must use the outside lane (there are lane markings stating this). A local councillor recently suggested it needs upgraded, but it's not clear in what way he suggests. Dutch-style priority for cyclists would make a big difference here.

http://goo.gl/maps/WFbyR

Immediately after, the two lane entry (no good reason for that) narrows into one. So much room for something better.

This is a 50mph limit road in Erskine. Shame there's so little space. http://goo.gl/maps/9mk3S

We then go through a 30mph road for a little while - it's OK (though no cycling facilities), pass some more roundabouts with no cycling facilities. Some Dutch roundabouts and a 20mph limit would be great.

We then want to enter Inchinnan, but it's illegal! Let's be clear, I think stopping cars use Inchinnan village as some sort of rat run is an excellent idea. By making car journeys less convenient and reducing traffic through a village, it's exactly the kind of thing I like to see. But allow cyclists! I note that cycling campaign group Go Bike have highlighted this issue in the past. We can break the law or push the bike for a few yards here.

http://goo.gl/maps/7FMbP

Cycling through Inchinnan itself is OK, some is 20mph (next to a school, supported by speed bumps), the rest 30mph. It'd benefit from 20mph throughout, but is OK to cycle through.

Then, another 50mph road. In theory. I'd bet the average speed is substantially more than that. As you can see, there should be plenty of space for a segregated lane here. It's horrible to cycle on, and I'm always tempted to use the path (which has very little use). The one person Street View has captured on it is one of the only person determined enough to do it on a normal bike with no helmet - yep, me. Can you imagine a family cycling on this? No chance.

http://goo.gl/maps/nCthq

On entering Renfrew, now back to 30mph limit, and this is the photo that frustrates me the most. Look at the space. Look at it! There is absolutely no excuse for not having segregated cycling infrastructure here. None. Yet, what we have is a fairly narrow lane with frequent pinch points where drivers frequently cut in front of people to avoid. This is unpleasant to cycle on.

PS - there is an off road cycle path we could take instead of the road in the picture below, but it's indirect, is very isolated and so subjectively unsafe for that reason and is not well-maintained. I don't think it's a realistic alternative.

Space for hatching? Yes. Cycling? No http://goo.gl/maps/wL8w3

Looking at this, nobody should be surprised that the modal share of cycling for journeys up to 5 miles is 2%. It's not surprising. How can you blame people for not cycling on those roads? Education campaigns are not the answer. Dedicated, segregated infrastructure in Dutch style is. What are we waiting for?

Summary

The status quo just isn't good enough. Leisure cycling is all well and good, but I shouldn't feel unsafe cycling in my local area. Nobody should. Families should be able to cycle together being subjectively and objectively safe. Cycling should be pleasant and enjoyable. For all people, all ages. Infrastructure instructs behaviour. Building more roads will only get us deeper in this car-dependancy nightmare.

Support the Cycling Embassy of GB and the Campaign for Childhood Freedom. Tell your MP, MSP and councillors, as well as anyone who will listen.

I've just started a new Twitter account about cycling - please find me there. @justacwab

Cycling in Wrocław - it's not exactly Amsterdam

I highlighted some nice infrastructure that Wrocław has to offer earlier. The bad is that such infrastructure is neither perfect nor consistent. I haven't had to look hard for examples for this post, unfortunately.

When the going gets tough - the cycle lanes get going

Firstly, and most crucially, the segregated lanes frequently give up when you need them most. Coming into the city centre there is decent segregated infrastructure that comes to an abrupt end from a few directions.

Coming from the West (on Kazimierza Wielkiego), this lane gives up on you to make way for a third lane of traffic. Notice the cyclist in the photo, who (just after I took the photo) hopped onto the pavement instead of joining three lanes of traffic. I'd do the same, frankly.

Left turn lane prioritised over cycle safety here

(See Street View for a better view of this)

Coming from the South (along Grabiszyńska), there are some OK cycle lanes, to here where there's clearly no room for any cycle infrastructure. Just look at how narrow these roads are!

Cycling paths taking me round the corner, but the city's straight ahead

No, taking me to a parked car and a no cycling sign

Just after the cycling path ends there's room for on pavement parking and three lanes of traffic

And a little further towards town, no room for cyclists here

Elsewhere on Grabiszyńska, the cycle path reverts to shared use in places and is on some horrible surfaces at others.

Four lanes for traffic, shared use for cyclists and pedestrians

Shared use and rubbish surface - no room for a smooth dedicated cycle track here

Finally for Grabiszyńska, the cycle track swaps side of the road, and to legally cross you must wait at three sepatare red/green signals. It can take as long as 4 minutes to cross all three if you're unlucky (yes, I timed it). We'd never ask motorists to wait at three light phases, so why cyclists (and pedestrians)? It frequently feels like being a second class citizen.

No room for continued path on this side of the road, must swap sides taking upto 4 minutes waiting at red lights

Another major street in the city, ul. Świdnicka, there is some comically painted bikes on the road. Not even an advisory lane. As you can see, there'd be no room for high quality Dutch style infrastructure here.

Braving it on ul. Świdnicka

It seems like planners are willing to take the easy decisions, but ultimately not take away space from motor vehicles. You'll never create a significant modal share, nor a cycling culture, this way

Infrastructure from Hell

Advance Stop Lines. These have been covered extensively by other blogs (probably never better than here). They're somewhere between useless and worse than useless. It's no surprise that most cyclists on this road are to be found on the pavement.

Fancy trying to share this three-lane junction with a bendy-bus? No, me neither.

Useless infrastructure. Why bother?

Lanes too narrow to be usable. Difficult to pass one other cyclist, imagine the ambition in building this?

Not a great surface, and so narrow

And conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians

Good luck giving way to pedestrians coming out of the park - no way to see them until it's too late

Similarly, there's an exit from the park round this blind corner. No better place for the cycle path here.

Signage - Where is It?

Spot the sign for cyclists in this photo.

Excellent signage, but where?

No? Here you go.

Ah, there it is. But what does it mean?

Ah, the R9. Could you imagine if motorists were provided with rubbish like this? No destination, no number of kilometres, no times, just R9. Useless. I need to be able to get on my bike and go to where I want. Normal people don't go on the Internet or check a route map to find out where the R9 goes before they set out, and nor should they. Lack of signage has landed me on a fast and busy dual carriageway (when the path I was on came to a sudden end), but a parallel road had a continuing path. I had no way of knowing this. Motorists don't have to tolerate this, neither should cyclists. This stuff is comparatively easy to fix, an absolute no-brainer.

I think it's fair to say that Wrocław may have some stuff right, and it's certainly better than many UK cities, but it has a long way to go to.