I know, I know – local media outlets (and their, ahem, combative comments sections) aren’t normally the go-to place for positive cycling stories, especially those focused on controversial infrastructure projects invariably branded a “waste of money” by frothing motorists.
But Birmingham Live has bucked the trend of the 21st century recently by publishing an article refuting a suggestion made by the Telegraph and the Mail last year that one of the city’s major cycle routes was “barely used” and a symptom of the local authority’s financial “incompetence”.
Last year, the two national papers – bastions of active travel, naturally – ran stories on Birmingham’s cycle highway along the A34 from Perry Barr to the city centre, which claimed that locals have branded it a “shocking waste” just under £10m, while using one photo to allege that the lane “sits empty” with “no use” using it, while causing “gridlock” and traffic chaos for motorists.
“But the A34 highway… is much more than ‘barely used’. In fact, it is one of the most popular cycle routes in the city,” Birmingham Live wrote in an admittedly belated response to the Telegraph’s claims last week.
The site pointed out that, according to data provided by 849 machine learning vision sensors owned and maintained by Transport for West Midlands, an average of 284 cyclists use the route every day, amounting to around 2,000 journeys a week.
That puts the A34 on the Cyclotron cycle counter list just behind Birmingham’s Bristol Road ‘blue’ route (which averages 501 cyclists a day) and the Sky Blue Way in Coventry (385) as the West Midlands’ third most-used bike route.
Cyclists in the comments, meanwhile, noted that – despite the Telegraph’s claims – “traffic chaos” has not been caused by the cycleway, the construction of which did not reduce road capacity for motorists (I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya).
“There would be traffic ‘chaos’ with or without a cycle lane,” wrote localwhinger. “At least now people have some degree of safety when not in their cars, have freedom to choose, and the urban environment is made slightly more pleasant.”
“How many people would drive if Birmingham had one or two safe roads, but to use any of the others was to risk serious injury or death?” added ukpedestrian. “We need many more protected bike lanes and car-free streets so that more people can feel safe while exercising freedom of transport choice. Our roads need to be redesigned so that everyone, not just car owners, can travel on them in safety.”
> New Birmingham cycle lane turned into ‘VIP drivers route’ for Commonwealth Games
“The Cyclotron is a fantastic resource for those of us promoting cycling in Birmingham and the wider region,” Liz Clements, Cabinet Minister for Transport at Birmingham City Council, told Birmingham Live, along with news that a new cycleway on a key route between Smethwick and Birmingham is due to be discussed soon by councillors.
Meanwhile, cycling and walking commissioner Adam Tranter has also promised that 2024 will be a “bumper year of delivery” for cycling infrastructure schemes in the region, with a “raft” of projects set to be rolled out to give people “more choice” in how they travel.
This ‘good cycling news’ angle is quite the jump from previous stories about “useless” cycle lanes in Birmingham, anyway…
> "Bizarre" seven-foot-long cycle lane a "waste of money" critics claim, but council insists it isn't a bike lane
Add new comment
49 comments
Is it because other people refuse to even after being asked nicely?
Because if they dropped them they'd hit the floor? (Seven is pretty impressive...)
Rat traps and modern MTB flats with pins in them - DAMHIKT
If folks really think pedals could do that, why do they come so near cyclists
At this point in time the Telegraph and the Mail are easy to dismiss as just rage bate.
They have no balance or informed comment and there's very little useful information or news in it.
I mean they could publish an update saying they were wrong... but we all know they won't.
All good! Just for perspective (not to be discouraging) and what these can do some figures from elsewhere. In NL (figures from well over a decade ago): eight locations in Utrecht have more than 10000 cyclists per day, and one of them has more than 22000 cyclists per day (this was up to an average of 35,000 on working days in 2016 and rising). In Groningen, six different places have counts greater than 10000 per day, two of those are above 14000 per day. At the busiest location in Copehagen apparently the daily total number of cyclists on the street is around 28000 (there is some skepticism on this - but it's clearly "lots"). (Numbers collected in this article, sources linked from there).
How many cars/trucks are the on the A34 per day? Genuine question, wondering how far we still have to go.
Don't have time to crunch the numbers but here's where they are, looks pretty simple to get the data:
https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/regions/10
You can get average annual daily flow (both directions) or the raw count data (one direction) - this is done at various count points (there are a fair number on the A34).
Numbers by vehicle type but that doesn't give you occupancy.
Build it, build it properly, and they will come
Exactly. We know from other countries about what works and what doesn't work. Providing good separated infrastructure is a key step in getting people to swap car journeys for less damaging transport alternatives and if some of those people choose active travel (vs. e-scooters etc), then we've just levelled up the population's health and spared the NHS some expense.
Of course, the right-wing media isn't interested in improvements - they seem to be focussed on cruelty and destruction instead.
"separated" - YAY !
I almost went to type "segregated" and then remembered the better adjective
Absolutely. So many examples - including some places where the criticism of "but they were already cycling / had infra" doesn't apply e.g. Seville.
HOWEVER - there are two caveats. The quality must be sufficiently good*. Perhaps more importantly in the UK there has to be some rebalancing by reducing the attractiveness of driving. Because "where driving is easy, people drive".
Driving suppresses demand and support for other modes in several ways. It's space-inefficient so doesn't need many people doing it to take over all the space. Where driving's a default people will always be found to "need" to drive. They'll have to be able to get places more quickly, park near to all destinations etc. Active travel - but particularly cycling - will always lose out.
It may be possible to tame the car (see NL, perhaps) but it seems this will always require effort to resist its overuse and "mission creep"!
* A network of routes (not all necessarily cycles-only), which feels safe, going fairly directly to where people want to go (usually where the cars go now) with secure parking. Ideally this would accommodate the human desire to travel socially, not in single file.
Where I live in Surrey, the vehicle drivers are so lazy now that they mount the pavement and park on the pedestrianised area right outside the town centre takeaways/burger bars/pizza places instead of 100 yards away in one direction in the big car park or 200 yards away on street. Nobody does a thing to stop them - not the council, not the police - and that's what we're all up against.
Of course - this is "because humans" (also because not socially unacceptable enough). This is exactly what we'd be doing if we all had hoverboards, jet packs or were still on horses of course.
Indeed the same applies to bikes. Luckily these are much less of an issue in terms of space (and smell) and we can see possible work-arounds before we've even got the issue.
Just think of the uproar if people dumped those hirebikes all over.
Don't think they will
You don't think they'll build, don't think they'll build properly or don't think they'll come. You need to clarify so we know you're trolling or not.
Don't think it will be used as much as people think whilst driving is a viable option
Pages