In message , at 20:17:04 on Tue,
24 Aug 2004, Jeremy Parker remarked:
I'm not sure of the Milton Keynes figure, but I think its about 3% -
about half that for the London borough of Hackney.

The problem with cycling and MK is that the place is so spread out. That
and it's not particularly difficult to drive around. But you probably do
get quite a bit of leisure cycling.
--
Roland Perry

Jeremy Parker wrote:

That aside, the facility does seem to successfully promote cycling
in
MK, to a level I've not seen elsewhere in the UK other than in
Oxford
or Cambridge.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK


2001 figures for bike mode commuting share are Cambridge, 28% (which
beats Amsterdam), Oxford 16%, York 13%, Hull 12%, Boston, Lincs. 11%.
I'm not sure of the Milton Keynes figure, but I think its about 3% -
about half that for the London borough of Hackney.

See Jon Parkin "Comparisons of cycle use for the journey to work from
the '81, '91 and 2001 census" TEC, Sept 2003

Maybe this is because although MK has an excellent cycle network (I used
it once and was very impressed apart from the signage!), it also has a
relatively high-capacity road network, so cycling isn't really a way to
beat congestion (e.g. London) or car restrictions (e.g. Hackney)
(although I admit I have only driven in MK in rush hour once).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Jeremy Parker" wrote in message
...

2001 figures for bike mode commuting share are
Cambridge, 28% (which beats Amsterdam),
Oxford 16%, York 13%, Hull 12%, Boston, Lincs. 11%.

See Jon Parkin "Comparisons of cycle use for the journey
to work from the '81, '91 and 2001 census" TEC, Sept 2003

Does it give any indication of how flat the various places are? I have to
laugh when politicians openly wonder why cycling is less popular in London
than in Amsterdam.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

Some other thoughts...most of the east-west roads in the map area are
currently one-way, because they are rather narrow and permanently packed
with parked cars on both sides. Your man doesn't address this at all.

Priory Road, the narrow straight north-south road about a third from the
east (right) edge of the map, is currently divided into alternating
northbound-only, southbound-only and two way sections, to prevent anyone
from using the length of it as an alternative to West End Lane (the wide
wiggly north-south road in the middle). His plan seems to turn Priory Road
into a perfectly straight 2-way narrow rat run with no side roads and a
succession of humped-back bridges. This would be terribly dangerous / Cool,
I wanna go / Delete as appropriate.

Would the shallow underpasses that he describes each have to have their own
pumping stations? Wouldn't that in itself be a major expense?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Well, if you believe this site:
http://www.func-junc.co.uk/

Some other thoughts...most of the east-west roads in the map area are
currently one-way, because they are rather narrow and permanently packed
with parked cars on both sides. Your man doesn't address this at all.

Priory Road, the narrow straight north-south road about a third from the
east (right) edge of the map, is currently divided into alternating
northbound-only, southbound-only and two way sections, to prevent anyone
from using the length of it as an alternative to West End Lane (the wide
wiggly north-south road in the middle). His plan seems to turn Priory Road
into a perfectly straight 2-way narrow rat run with no side roads and a
succession of humped-back bridges. This would be terribly dangerous / Cool,
I wanna go / Delete as appropriate.

Would the shallow underpasses that he describes each have to have their own
pumping stations? Wouldn't that in itself be a major expense?

He says his underpasses would be higher than the level of the sewers,
if that is true then drainage without pumping might be possible. If
it is not possible then the pumping/drainage costs would be much the
same as a conventional underpass, although less digging and building
would still make the whole job cheaper.

I've not read all the text on his site, let alone the book, but it
seems to me that his proposals would only be physically feasible in a
completely "new build" town or city - an architects daydream! I don't
see how you could ever 'convert' London to this idea. He's right to
say that shallow underpasses and low bridges are cheaper than
deep/high ones but to say they are "100th of the cost" seems absurd.
His plan also appears to show a couple of houses knocked down to make
room for the bike-sheds. At London property prices?

He also says that his plans depend upon "political certainty that
there will be no restrictions" - this could only occur in a
totalitarian dictatorship.

In article , Martin Rich
writes
The idea of segregating different types of traffic - particularly
pedestrians and cars - at different levels was favoured by planners in
the 1960s and 1970s. You can see this put into practice in the
highwalks around the Barbican. The problem is that the pedestrian
ways, far from being the attractive green lanes described on the
func-junc site, become bleak and windswept.

The village I live in is a mid-70s creation. It consists of a loop road
with lots of multi-branch cul-de-sacs stretching inwards. Between them
is a network of footpaths converging on an L-shaped "spine path" with
the village shops at the apex. The paths get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Rich
writes

The problem is that the pedestrian ways, far from
being the attractive green lanes described on the
func-junc site, become bleak and windswept.

The village I live in is a mid-70s creation. The paths
get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

What happens in cul-de-sacs and footpaths all depends on who live in the
neighbourhood.

IMO every sink estate should be opened up to traffic, in fact the nearby
roads should have barriers, one-way sections and bus-only sections applied
so that the best driving route from anywhere to anywhere is through the sink
estates. They will become much safer and more pleasant places to live.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Rich
writes

The problem is that the pedestrian ways, far from
being the attractive green lanes described on the
func-junc site, become bleak and windswept.

The village I live in is a mid-70s creation. The paths
get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

What happens in cul-de-sacs and footpaths all depends on who live in the
neighbourhood.

IMO every sink estate should be opened up to traffic, in fact the nearby
roads should have barriers, one-way sections and bus-only sections applied
so that the best driving route from anywhere to anywhere is through the
sink
estates. They will become much safer and more pleasant places to live.

Somehow I get the impression that Clive Feather doesn't live on a sink
estate. But I could be wrong :-)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:08:02 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Martin Rich
writes
The idea of segregating different types of traffic - particularly
pedestrians and cars - at different levels was favoured by planners in
the 1960s and 1970s. You can see this put into practice in the
highwalks around the Barbican. The problem is that the pedestrian
ways, far from being the attractive green lanes described on the
func-junc site, become bleak and windswept.

The village I live in is a mid-70s creation. It consists of a loop road
with lots of multi-branch cul-de-sacs stretching inwards. Between them
is a network of footpaths converging on an L-shaped "spine path" with
the village shops at the apex. The paths get plenty of use for walking
and cycling, and *do* form "attractive green lanes".

This sounds as though it's more influenced by the garden city
approach, which placed some emphasis on including footpaths between
roads, than by the notion of segregating pedestrians and vehicles at
different levels. Though it also sounds as though the planners sought
to offer separate pedestrian and vehicle routes between houses and
shops.

Footpaths are a particular feature of (most notably) Hampstead Garden
Suburb, and the garden city at Letchworth, though of course there are
plenty of footpaths in other parts of London. And they can be very
pleasant and are often well-used; my criticism was directed towards
plans which corrall *all* pedestrian traffic into sepearate, and often
elevated, walkways.

I'm drafting this off-line so can't easily check, but seem to remember
that the func-junc proposal included draconian fines for pedestrians
who strayed onto the roadway for vehicles. I'm guessing that this
isn't a feature of your village :-)

Martin

Does it give any indication of how flat the various places are? I
have to
laugh when politicians openly wonder why cycling is less popular in
London
than in Amsterdam.

There was a study that found that in Britain terrain is the biggest
influence on amount of cycling. The figures are rather old, but Jon
Parkin, who I quoted in my previous post, was planning to redo the
study. I don't know how he's getting on. Hilly places are rainy
places here, but apparently it seems to be hills, not rain, that
likely makes the difference.

This is consistent with Danish findings, that a 50m elevation gain
halves cycling. It's also consistent with the rule of thumb that
100' elevation gain is equivalent to an extra mile on the flat, given
that the average bike trip is about 2 miles.

There are hilly cities where people ride bikes. Bristol in the UK is
an example, and San fransisco and Seattle in the USA

Jeremy Parker