Dear C&S Research Group

Alex makes a very good point. It would be remiss to think that the
increase in cycling had come about as a result of pull factors alone. Does
anybody have any data on the accessibility characteristics of areas in
Hackney with high cycling growth compared to other similar areas
within/outside the borough with no/low growth? My hunch is that poor PT
accessibility relative to other areas within the London is one key factor.

Furthermore, a social-cultural analysis behind the reasons for increase in
cycle growth is required. What have been the demographic changes in the
area (and nature of housing) over the years and has that had an impact on
levels of cycling? I am reluctant to use the 'G' word.

Interesting study for a budding researcher to follow-up!

Tim


> Hi folks
>
> Couldn't resist adding my tuppence to the "why is cycling in Hackney so
> popular" debate, purely because I'm a daily cyclist from Hackney to
> central London, and have been for years.
>
> Funnily enough the biggest issue for me was actually the fact that
> public transport is pushed to the limit: There is no direct tube
> service; the Overground is so busy you can't physically get on in the
> morning and the buses are heaving and take forever. So cycling is
> genuinely quicker, even if you actually stop at the red lights (which of
> course I always do).
>
> I just mention this because I didn't see recognition of these "push"
> factors, only a discussion of "pull" factors (e.g. are cycle lanes good
> or bad).
>
> For what its worth, I do think the "pull" factors, e.g. traffic calming
> measures, and allowing cyclists through roads closed to cars, and other
> measures the Council have brought in have been fantastic in Hackney - I
> can go most of the way seeing hardly any traffic at all.
>
> Just one other observation - the Council have painted giant cycle logos
> on roads designated as Cycle Routes -  not quite as obvious as
> Edinburgh's coloured lanes, but it does tell drivers that they should
> expect to see cycles, and is a bit of sneaky promotion too.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alex Veitch
> Integrated Transport Manager
> ATOC
> 020 7841 8052
> 07825 376 130
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Parkin, John
> Sent: 16 March 2009 15:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Off-prints of paper comparing methods of assessing routes for
> cycle traffic
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have a limited number of off-prints of the following available to be
> posted to anyone who is interested as follows:
>
> Parkin, J. and Coward, A. (2009) Comparison of methods of assessing
> routes for cycle traffic. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
> Engineers, Municipal Engineer 162 (1) pp7-14
>
> Abstract
> This paper compares the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT)
> Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle
> Review with two methods of assessment based on research into perceptions
> of risk by cycle users in a study of fifteen routes from ten origins
> into Chester, the county town of Cheshire. One method uses risk ratings
> for components of a journey and the other uses variables based on
> generic features of the journey. The most direct route and a reasonable
> alternative were analysed for five origins. A large range of review
> scores from the IHT, risk rating and generic feature methods was
> estimated, demonstrating widely varying circumstances for cycle traffic
> including routes that were both heavily motor trafficked or were traffic
> free. Very strong correlation was found between the risk rating method
> and the IHT method (-0.877); moderate correlation was found between the
> generic feature method and the IHT method (-0.564). Based on the ease of
> use of the risk rating and generic feature methods, it is recommended
> that these are used more extensively for cycle route assessment. It is
> also recommended that the IHT guidelines are developed further to allow
> for a full and proper estimate of the impact of large junctions on
> routes. Further, it is recommended that more work be undertaken on the
> perceptions of risk of cycle users in order to determine coefficients
> for a wider range of carriageway and junction types.
>
> Regards
> Dr John Parkin
> Reader in Transport Engineering and Planning
> University of Bolton, Deane Road, Bolton BL3 5AB UK
> t:+44 (0)1204 903 027 m:+44 (0)7903 523 017
> w: http://data.bolton.ac.uk/staff/jp10/
>
> ****************************************************************************
> The contents of this email and any associated files are for the addressee
> only and should be treated as confidential.  Unless you are the named
> addressee you cannot copy, use or disclose it to anyone else. If you have
> received this email in error please notify the sender immediately.  The
> email has originated from the Association of Train Operating Companies (an
> unincorporated trade association) or one of it’s corporate entities:
> ATOC Limited (3069033), Rail Settlement Plan Limited (3069042), Rail Staff
> Travel Limited (3069020) or NRES Limited (3691898) each of these companies
> are registered in England and Wales and with a common registered address -
> 3rd Floor, 40 Bernard Street, London WC1N 1BY.  Neither entity listed
> herein shall be liable for any defamatory statements.  Outbound messages
> are checked for all currently known viruses.
> ****************************************************************************
>
>
>


Researcher
Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
& Department of Planning
School of the Built Environment
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane Campus
Oxford  OX3 0BP
Tel +44 (0)1865 483436
Email [log in to unmask]