taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson


reohn2
Posts: 33026
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby reohn2 » 14 May 2018, 11:22pm

Good watch.
I particularly like the term "desire lines"(routes).
The idiots in the UK currently designing cyclepaths/routes could learn a lot from that term.
It all needs a revolution in urban transport,the bike is that revolution,the UK hasn't realised the value of that revolution yet.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14961
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby Si » 15 May 2018, 7:49am

I used to hrar the term 'desire line' all the time when working with sustrans. Problem was that the plan that sustrans proposed never seemed to be what was finally delivered by the builders.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12091
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby mjr » 15 May 2018, 8:41am

I think the most impressive claim in there is a lane of cars can move about 1300 people an hour while a cycleway can move 5900. Anyone know the source/citation for that?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

reohn2
Posts: 33026
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby reohn2 » 15 May 2018, 9:50am

mjr wrote:I think the most impressive claim in there is a lane of cars can move about 1300 people an hour while a cycleway can move 5900. Anyone know the source/citation for that?

I think he said that was capacity for a given city road.
It's not hard to imagine that figure to be true,a car's sheer bulk when in numbers makes them slower in cities.
If you think of the amount of space cars take even if they're carrying four people,which a rarity in itself as they're usually single or two occupant,they still take up more space that any other form of passenger carrying vehicle,and need far more regulation in their movement TL's,speed limits,pedestrian crossings,and need to be licenced due to their potential for harm,that's even before parking is considered.
I feel sure I'm preaching to the converted though :)
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 12091
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby mjr » 15 May 2018, 9:52am

reohn2 wrote:I feel sure I'm preaching to the converted though :)

Indeed but I like to be able to defend figures against sceptics before I use them in advocacy...
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1980
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby The utility cyclist » 15 May 2018, 10:23am

Crossrail at a cost of almost £30billion will have a maximum capacity of journeys less than the 2016 figures for cycle commuters in London. If they'd have spent that money on cycling infra in London and the South East (because £30B is impossible to spend just in London on cycle infra) the increase in cycle journeys would have not just doubled (thus exceeding the capacity of crossrail) in London alone it would have gone much much further.
Crossrail will be already at full capacity in less than 8 years and then where next? :roll:

I don't know where MCA got his numbers from but this document puts some figures on different types of roads http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-not ... raffic.pdf
I wouldn't say he was a million miles off as these numbers are very maximum in ideal conditions.
hourly capacity roads.JPG

road type.JPG

thirdcrank
Posts: 28035
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby thirdcrank » 15 May 2018, 7:38pm

mjr wrote:I think the most impressive claim in there is a lane of cars can move about 1300 people an hour while a cycleway can move 5900. Anyone know the source/citation for that?


Presumably his recently-published book. At the end of his presentation and immediately before the Q&A session he briefly referred to it as a resource for his data (my words.)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Copenhagenize- ... enhagenize

Pete Owens
Posts: 1430
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby Pete Owens » 16 May 2018, 2:39am

There seems to be a complete disconnect between his excellent analysis of the problems and his proposed solutions.

He starts well by pointing out how city streets used to be democratic - until engineers (particularly in the US) started to design them for motors by segregating pedestrians onto the margins with special facilities for them (sidewalk and crosswalks - pavements and crossings in the UK). All supposedly for the safety of the pedestrian but in reality for the convenience of motorists. But what is his solution - more engineering - segregating cyclists onto the margins special facilities for us. Towards the end the irony goes into overdrive he approves of fact that the very same engineers who he castigated for segregating pedestrians were pulling the same trick on cyclists from 1915 (30:36) - but now they are "We".

This can be clearly illustrated by the busy Copenhagen junction he shows (13:40 - videos have been shown approvingly here). The vast majority of the traffic (the cyclists) are confined to a single lane to keep the other three free for the small number of motors to have dedicated lanes for each turning manoere.

He points out how (in the US particularly) pedestrians who stepped out of line and encroached the motorists space were mocked as jaywalkers - he could have gone on to point out how cyclists face similar restrictions with laws to enforce edge of road cycling - but no he is just as contemptuous of places where cycling in the road is legitimised by shared lane markings.

He points out how cyclists are not routable - we want to go from everywhere to everywhere else and our multiple desire lines will be the most direct
lines from our homes to our destinations. Yet what does he propose more cycle routes.

Does he not see the bit where he justifies the cyclists invading pedestrian space as "momentumists" looking big with smug grins on their face would be entirely unacceptable if it was expressed by motorists maintaining their momentum as they pass a speed limit sign?

At 23:00 on the arrogance of space he gets his green paint pot out - (as he says "Any moron could do it") to paint cycle lanes across a junction - then when questioned as to why 37:00 Torronto's cycle infrastructure failed to deliver the cyclists he claimed would be inevitable suddenly "its just f***ing paint".

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8870
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby Cunobelin » 16 May 2018, 6:15am

reohn2 wrote:Good watch.
I particularly like the term "desire lines"(routes).
The idiots in the UK currently designing cyclepaths/routes could learn a lot from that term.
It all needs a revolution in urban transport,the bike is that revolution,the UK hasn't realised the value of that revolution yet.



When I worked with our local Council, some years ago , we used "desire lines" to inform planning

We got a massive map of the borough and took it to teh Saturday Market

Cyclists were then asked to simply draw the routes they used for commuting, leisure or day to day trips

IT was educational as all of a sudden it was clear where the facilities were needed and some very quick solutions.

For instance there are two facilities parallel to each other and joined by a busy section of dual carriageway - cyclists were using a wide footpath that connected the two to avoid the dual carriageway. That was quickly converted Into a formal route

A lot of the future developments were based on the "desire lines" demonstrated by that map

Mike Sales
Posts: 1864
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Location: Fenland

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby Mike Sales » 16 May 2018, 8:10am

Pete Owens wrote:There seems to be a complete disconnect between his excellent analysis of the problems and his proposed solutions.



That is an interesting and cogent analysis.
When three segregated networks are superimposed priority at crossings has to be decided.
Mostly the most dangerous, with the most kinetic energy win.
We don't yet have a word for cyclists outside their lane. How about jayriders?

Mike Sales
Posts: 1864
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Location: Fenland

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby Mike Sales » 16 May 2018, 8:19am

Cunobelin wrote:A lot of the future developments were based on the "desire lines" demonstrated by that map


Here is a fine illustration of desire lines.
Brasilia was built with a lot of thought about motor traffic and how to make driving fast and easy. No thought was given to pedestrians. On the photo in this link you can see the paths across the wide grass spaces made by those who have to walk. Of course they leave no trace of their perilous crossing of the roads.
Brasilia is the extreme case of what highway engineers like to design.
http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/walking-paths-of-brasilia.html

The comments below the article are interesting too, and mention cycle paths.

Pete Owens
Posts: 1430
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby Pete Owens » 16 May 2018, 10:32am

Mike Sales wrote:
Pete Owens wrote:There seems to be a complete disconnect between his excellent analysis of the problems and his proposed solutions.



That is an interesting and cogent analysis.
When three segregated networks are superimposed priority at crossings has to be decided.
Mostly the most dangerous, with the most kinetic energy win.
We don't yet have a word for cyclists outside their lane. How about jayriders?


How about "a cult of testosterone-driven child abusers"?
Pretty high on the scale of anti cycling bile don't you think?
Just as the autocentric traffic engineers who want pedestrians out of the way demonise, mock and "other" pedestrians who step out of line, those who want to do the same to cyclists use exactly the same play book.

Watch the first 5 minutes of the video - particularly the bit where he castigates the creation of playgrounds as a zoo for children to clear them off the streets at the behest of motorists. Then read this:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/vehicular-cyclists-secret-sect.html

brooksby
Posts: 293
Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:02am
Location: Bristol

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby brooksby » 16 May 2018, 10:42am

Mike Sales wrote:We don't yet have a word for cyclists outside their lane. How about jayriders?


Every lane is a cycle lane. Cyclists can never be outside their lane! (well, unless they are on a 'definitely pedestrians only' footpath, but that's a whole other issue...).

thirdcrank
Posts: 28035
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: taking back our cities Mikael Colville Anderson

Postby thirdcrank » 16 May 2018, 11:06am

Pete Owens wrote:There seems to be a complete disconnect between his excellent analysis of the problems and his proposed solutions. ...


That sums it up.

I could add some of my own examples of what seemed to be weaknesses in his arguments. Part of the difficulty in discussing them is the stage presentation rather than something in writing. I don't feel inclined to watch it several times to be sure I'm quoting him accurately. (I'm certainly not going to shell out for the book.)

Some of it is self-evident. In the absence of physical obstacles, people going from A to B will go in a straight line. For a given width of carriageway, the flow of cyclists can be greater than the flow of motor vehicles. Some things seem to be missing altogether eg if there was anything about the distribution of goods I missed it.

The popularity of the motor car seemed to be explained by clever marketing. He seemed to see the city as a given and growing settlement pattern without recognising the way motor transport has contributed to this growth. eg Growth of suburbs and rural settlements becoming dormitories. "Urban sprawl."

The big one is how this might be delivered more widely. Did he really suggest that politicians' embarrassment will achieve it?

What struck me about his "momentumist" explanation - I think he said that apart from being hit by a car, the worst thing that could happen to a cyclist was being forced to stop - was his example of the rider using the pedestrian crossing, even though it was illegal. (Presumably that's in Copenhagen.) I don't see why, if conditions are so good for cyclists there, they still need to use space reserved for pedestrians. Alternatively, if doing so is Ok, why it remains illegal there.

Several good things: I was particularly impressed by cycle routes being prioritised for snow clearance.

And, it seems that in Copenhagen they have the right sort of cyclist: nobody in spandex.