Milton Keynes Redway

[SudaNim]

I've just moved to a new development on the east side of MK. After having lived in Aylesbury for 10 years, I thought I'd chuck my two pence worth in...

Due to weather and unpacking I've ventured out on the bike only a few times since moving last month, but my experiences in MK so far have been in the main positive.

In terms of cycling, I feel MK is way ahead of Aylesbury. I know that Aylesbury was made a cycling demonstration town, but I have already used the Redways more in the last 2 weeks than I did Aylesbury's system.

In Aylesbury, with only a few exceptions, I generally used the roads rather than paths for cycling. Why? Proximity to traffic means you're practically on the road for the most part, but with the added disadvantage of negotiating junctions where lesser priority roads join the main road you are cycling 'along' (for those in the know, my case in point is Bicester Road where it meets Northern Road). Also, the cycle paths were generally added as an afterthought giving rise to some odd traffic planning (Griffin Lane has to have one of the shortest stretches of cycle path in the UK - maybe 2 metres!). Some of the paths are excellent however, such as on the newer estate of Fairford Leys, or running into town alongside Oxford Road.

In MK, as I said I've only been out a few times, mainly in the last couple of weeks. I had to go into Central MK to pay a cheque in the other day. I'm about 3-4 miles away by Redway but rather than drive I took the bike because I'd previously seen the cycle stands meaning I had somewhere to lock up my pride and joy. I have a Redway map, but thought I'd try the journey without it (Oh, OK... I forgot to take it). My journey into CMK in took about 45 minutes and was... 'fun' as someone described it. At one point I ended up at the roundabout leading to J14 of the M1 - at least a mile out of my way. The return leg was much better and I did it in about 10 minutes making it commensurate with the time to drive, yet saving me the fuel and parking charge. Clearly, the signage could do with improving as giving me a choice of heading to Brook Furlong or Springfield didn't greatly help. CMK is signposted in a few places, which eventually got me there. Next time I know I need to pass Woolstone, Springfield and Fishermead, so this was hopefully a one-off for a new resident, but still a valid cause of complaint for a vistor. The network is lit, and though security may be perceived as a problem in some areas, the fact they are shared with pedestrians goes some way to alleviating this by mutual surveillance.

Riding on the Grid Roads (the H's & V's) is not going to be a palatable option - in most stretches the speed limits are 60/70mph as already pointed out. I know some take the view that the roads should be shared between all road users and cyclists have just as much right to use them as drivers. I acknowledge that sentiment and agree with it. But I'm not sure I would want to vocalise the argument as I pass beneath an HGV travelling at 60mph. Besides, the extensive cycle routes here in MK mean I generally don't *have* to ride on the road.

MK's founding fathers designed the city for the car. I do not criticise that vision at all, after all, like a lot of cyclists I am a car driver too, and the grid system it is a great asset to the city. There are occasions when a car is more practical than a bike and for those I will still drive. But I already see myself cycling more than at any time since I got my driving licence 20+ years ago, and that is solely down to MK's Redway system.

We in MK are way behind the systems found in countries like Holland, where the bike is king and running over a cyclist is nearly a capital crime, but I think we are way ahead of many other towns and cities in the UK.

[OldGreyBeard]

Very interesting report on MK and Aylesbury

What do you think of the cycle crossovers painted on the road in Aylesbury e.g. on Oxford Road just as it leaves Aylesbury on the road to Stone
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=northern+road,+aylesbury&aq=&sll=51.819798,-0.81669&sspn=0.005087,0.016512&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Northern+Rd,+Aylesbury,+Buckinghamshire+HP19,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.80822,-0.833179&spn=0.000639,0.002064&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.80822,-0.833179&panoid=2qk17MpDiqQ3yn3bv-_7hQ&cbp=12,276.09,,0,5

Streetview doesn't show it, I just put it in for the location.

What it consists of is a red painted cycleway across the minor road with large white squares where give way markings would be. BUT I believe that the minor road has priority but it doesn't look like it. Thereby creating uncertainty

Now to all those who say you can't have give way signs for a cycle path crossing a minor road, here is an example frm Leighton Buzzard where the narrow gauge railway which runs parallel to Vandyke Road has a level crossing on Shenley Hill Road where there is a give way for the railway and a giveway for the road junction shortly after.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Vandyke+Road,+Leighton-Linslade&aq=0&sll=51.80822,-0.833179&sspn=0.000639,0.002064&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vandyke+Rd,+Leighton-Linslade,+Central+Bedfordshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.934071,-0.635372&spn=0.000317,0.001032&t=h&z=21

[SudaNim]

If I'm right, I think you are referring to the roundabout where Oxford Rd meets Ellen Road. I can't picture the exact arrangement there, but from your description it sounds like a fairly common feature of the Aylesbury network. You basically have a cycle path that ends at some sort of junction, so the path continues accross the road transversely, with the road painted red to indicate the cycle "path". Motorists don't know who has priority, and cyclists don't know either. Generally, the uncertainty results in consideration from the other party; motorists (in my experience) will defer to the cyclist, whilst cyclists (again in my experience) don't assume they have priority and will wait until its clear or they are invited to cross by the driver. Before I wrote this I had a look at the Highway Code on the direct.gov.uk website and can't find the answer in there either. Feel free to point me in the right direction if you can find some definitive guidance...

Clearly, Aylesbury has employed this method of negotiating junctions because other options (i.e under/over passes) would be prohibitively expensive. The lack of signage for motorists suggests to me that the crossing affords no statutory protection under the Road Traffic Acts for cyclists, but I could be wrong.

This example is the prime reason why I think the MK Redway is way ahead of Aylesbury. Aylesbury (along with many other towns) has had to build it's cycle routes on top of the existing road system which in some part of the town pre-dates not just the invention of the car, but the invention of the bicycle too. This will inevitably limit the extent/routing. MK on the other hand has been largely designed and built since the late 1960s - a time when both could be catered for and incorporated into the design.

Over the last year I've been to the Netherlands for work a couple of times and seen the approach taken there. Like most of the UK, the roads in the towns, cities and villages date back to the time of horse-drawn carriages, yet the bicycle is a major cornerstone of their transport infrastructure. Here in the UK it's not, despite the work of parties like the CTC promoting the cycling agenda. Why the difference? For one, the Dutch system has more in common with MK than with Aylesbury - the paths are segregated from the roads and lit making the experience more pleasant. The cycle paths also bypass major road junctions or have bridges across dykes making the cycle route to your destination shorter. MK falls down to some extent here, because the Redways do follow the grid in a lot of places, making some journeys longer than they might be by (minor/local) road. The main reason why the Dutch are so far ahead of the UK in cycling seems to come down to culture and political will. It is a common sight across Holland to see bikes costing several hundred Euros left unlocked outside shops, houses and workplaces. The conclusion I reached was that the bike wasn't at risk of theft because pretty much everybody already has a bike, so why steal one? Politically, in Holland cyclists rank ahead of motorists which is most certainly not the case here.

I'm reading Franklin's report from 1999 on MK Redways at the moment, and his concensus seems to be that MK Redways are a failure. I'm unsure of the balance of the report as you can prove anything with statistics. Whether it's the case that Franklin has an agenda or not, this is the only negative report I have found on the MK Redways.

Might be worth throwing this nugget in too; my house is a new build, and I saw in the planning documentation that it was a requirement by MK Council that if a house on the development didn't have a garage it had to have secure storage for a number of bicycles commensurate with the size of the house. Maybe we're starting to see a cultural shift after all?

[OldGreyBeard]

I've seen them in various places but this was the only one I could remember the location of. I do have a problme with the uncertainty aspect as cars certainly do have the right of way and if there was an accident this would be taken into account. I think they are a good idea if they were done with giveway markings as with the level crossing in Leighton Buzzard. The Dutch do it so why can't we? Take a look at this excellent video of Ducth cyclepaths http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOR6zm_Yziw


I think you are right about the lack of poltical will but also there is a lack of pressure for segregation and the CTC is hardly pressing for it that strongly.

I have read Cyclecraft several times and I would agree that if you want to cycle on the roads that is the way to do it, even in The Netherlands, but I part company with it when it is so against segregated facilties as the Dutch experience just shows that done properly it works. To be honest the Redways are so much better than the bulk of the cyclepaths in Leighton Buzzard. I do wonder if Mr Franklin has such an emotional commitment to Cyclecraft that it affects his judgement. His report is frequently quoted by people who don't like or want cyclepaths so it does seem to be very influential in forming opinion.

It is quite common nowadays for cycle storage to be part of new build, in particular flats although this is comparatively recent. I do feel that slowly there is a shift but recent Government statements e.g about car parking in developments, make me wonder whether cycling is in for a lean time. Daft really since peope can save so much money by having more bicycles and fewer cars

[snibgo]

I have read Cyclecraft several times and I would agree that if you want to cycle on the roads that is the way to do it, even in The Netherlands, but I part company with it when it is so against segregated facilties as the Dutch experience just shows that done properly it works.

Cyclecraft is a guide or manual on how to cycle in Britain, as it currently is. Not as it might be, in some Utopia where a cyclist need never encounter a motorist, but as it really is. He points out the problems a cyclist may encounter with cycle tracks, lanes and the like. He devotes far more space, of course, to the problems a cyclist might encounter with motorists.

[SudaNim]

Well Franklin may well have a point on the security aspects of using a Redway: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12263041

[OldGreyBeard]

I have read Cyclecraft several times and I would agree that if you want to cycle on the roads that is the way to do it, even in The Netherlands, but I part company with it when it is so against segregated facilties as the Dutch experience just shows that done properly it works.

Cyclecraft is a guide or manual on how to cycle in Britain, as it currently is. Not as it might be, in some Utopia where a cyclist need never encounter a motorist, but as it really is. He points out the problems a cyclist may encounter with cycle tracks, lanes and the like. He devotes far more space, of course, to the problems a cyclist might encounter with motorists.

But not a reason not so seek to make things better which his attacks on cyclepaths are used as so often. He doesn't seem to suggest ways to make cyclepaths better, but uses his criticisms to encourage people to cycle on the road. For Utopia read The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany or Switzerland. Hardly imaginary and quite achieveable given the will. The big problem is that modal share will never grow if it means cycling on busy roads and cycling will therefore remain a fringe activity.

[OldGreyBeard]

Well Franklin may well have a point on the security aspects of using a Redway: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12263041

Couldn't that be said of any footpath? Some of the Redway I've been on doesn't have natural surveillance and the underpasses would be more threatening at night, but given the size of the city the level of problems seems quite low. People are assautled in Leighton Buzzard and even murdered in the town centre and its that archetypal middle England market town.

[drossall]

The safety problem is not one of being attacked, although that is an issue. It is that cycle routes still cross roads, and generally make intersections more, rather than less, difficult. Since collisions typically happen at intersections even when cyclists ride on the road, cycle routes are better at creating a feeling of safety than at the reality.

On the major routes in MK (and Stevenage), there are underpasses, but not in the areas where people live and (presumably) most cyclists ride, or at least start and finish.

[Richard Mann]

The big problem is that modal share will never grow if it means cycling on busy roads and cycling will therefore remain a fringe activity.

The experience in Oxford is that busy slow roads are fine. For adults. That was enough to start growing modal share. (Traffic restriction helps, obviously, though good old-fashioned congestion is sufficient to get you started).

You don't need expensive cycle tracks alongside roads as per the Netherlands (or separate networks as per MK).

You get speeds down by shaving space off the motorists (traffic lanes should be a maximum of 3m wide), and providing cycle lanes / medians / refuges / bus lanes / tight geometry etc. This would be a bit hard to achieve if you are starting with 70mph dual carriageways, but most towns aren't like that.

Richard

[OldGreyBeard]

But in Oxford you have a large number of students who are the easiest people to get cycling. Parents will often not let schoolchildren cycle on the roads which leads to pavement cycling. I think once you've passed you driving test cycling on the road becomes much easier as you understand more what cars will do.

I do agree regarding the minor road crossings and I don't see why it couldn't be changed to give cyclist the right of way. All it needs is a giveway. If it can be done for a narrow gauge railway it can be done for a cycle path. In the case of a NGR the train cant's stop so the cars have to.

If you ask someone about cycling the majority say it's too dangerous and this is presumably based on their observations of behaviour on the roads either as a passenger, driver or pedestrian.

i do agree about gradually restricting cars on the basis if you do it slowly they won't notice!

[Richard Mann]

But in Oxford you have a large number of students who are the easiest people to get cycling.

Students create a bit of a critical mass in some parts of Oxford, sure (though a lot of them walk, actually).

But it isn't the presence of students that got the middle classes to cycle en masse, it's the fact that cars have been slowed down so that cycling is fast and safe (enough).

{Yes you could do it by building cycle tracks and not bothering to slow the cars down. But it's a darn sight cheaper to rob space from cars instead.}

Richard

[OldGreyBeard]

But in Oxford you have a large number of students who are the easiest people to get cycling.

Students create a bit of a critical mass in some parts of Oxford, sure (though a lot of them walk, actually).

But it isn't the presence of students that got the middle classes to cycle en masse, it's the fact that cars have been slowed down so that cycling is fast and safe (enough).

{Yes you could do it by building cycle tracks and not bothering to slow the cars down. But it's a darn sight cheaper to rob space from cars instead.}

Richard

I suspect it's a combination of factors of which young people with little money, fearlessness and keeness are one and restricting cars are another. It is notable that cars are not restricted at all in MK which probably goes quite a way to explaining the low cycling modal share.

However, I repeat the point that parents will often not let schoolchildren cycle on the roads despite the desire of said children to cycle to school. This is because parents judge the roads, on which they no doubt drive themeslves, to be unsafe. This applies to low speed roads as well.

[Richard Mann]

However, I repeat the point that parents will often not let schoolchildren cycle on the roads despite the desire of said children to cycle to school. This is because parents judge the roads, on which they no doubt drive themeslves, to be unsafe. This applies to low speed roads as well.

You need a certain amount of traffic calming, yes. But actually what I think happens is:

1) Adults cycle to work/station/shops
2) Adults walk with children cycling to park/shops/school
3) Adults feel comfortable with children cycling further and cycle with them, on roads

It's a cultural thing. You don't get the culture change until the adults start cycling. Once the adults cycle, they tend to find a way to get their kids to cycle too.

Richard

[OldGreyBeard]

But how do you get past the "cycling is too dangerous" response? I'd really like to know what works