How many bottoms can TfL fit on a (cycle hire) bicycle ?

The London Assembly Transport Committee has recently released a report " Pedal power: the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways" (November 2010)  that casts a beady eye over the operations of the 'Boris Bikes' cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways in London.

As a cycle hire scheme for Manchester is one of the options being considered for inclusion in the next Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan there are important lessons to be learnt from the operation of cycle hire, or bike share, schemes in London and elsewhere.

The Greater Manchester LTP3 consultation document states that "we also need innovative solutions to help people to cycle as part of their daily lives, so we are looking closely at recent city centre cycle hire schemes to take the best from these and other marketing initiatives." (Page 12). 

Consideration of a cycle hire scheme was also contained in the recent report to the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) Policy & Resources committee which recommended that members consider:  "iv) a major bicycle hire scheme, similar to that in operation in London, should be explored for Manchester City Centre and adjacent areas of Salford."  The somewhat spurious reasoning for this particular committee to support a cycle hire scheme was that it would remove the need for integrating cycle carriage into the GM transport network - particularly Metrolink trams.... but I digress.

The London Assembly report states that they "found great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme but there remain questions about how it is being funded. It is not clear exactly how much sponsorship Barclays has provided for a scheme which has now been running for four months" and that "over 20 per cent of respondents to our survey had started cycling as a result of the scheme and over 80 per cent thought it good value for money. One comment received, representative of the views of many, described it as “a very significant enhancement to life in London”.

Overall the report  is positive and supports the continued development of the cycle hire scheme, but the report also highlights that: 

"TfL reports that the annual operating cost of the scheme will be £18 million which it expects to be met from charges and sponsorship. To date in 2010/11, TfL has received only £1.9 million of income from charges largely because the roll out to casual users was delayed by six months and has missed the summer months. TfL now expects the scheme to be self-financing in two to three years and for the income to start contributing to its £79 million set up costs by 2017/18." (Page 7) with regard to the issue of funding, the report concludes that:

"The costs and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme remain opaque. TfL has not told the Committee how much Barclays has paid to date for its branding of the scheme. The argument that all details of the relationships between TfL and Serco and Barclays are confidential is not a compelling one. The details of these deals determine how much of the costs of the scheme have to be met from farepayers at a time of huge pressure on TfL’s finances. It is in the public interest for these details to be made available to the Committee. This would be in line with the Mayor’s commitment to transparency about public expenditure."

To date, the London scheme has attracted over 100,000 registered members, who are making 15,000 cycle trips per day (averaged over the whole week), although the average number of weekday trips is higher at 21,000-24,000. But, this is just over half the target of 40,000 daily trips, although it should be noted that the scheme was only opened up to to casual users on 3rd December, albeit with some initial problems. TfL expects to reach an average of 27,000 trips per day by March 2011 and to reach the target of 40,000 trips per day in future (unspecified) years.

Phase 1 of the London Scheme was supposed to have enabled members and casual users to 

use 6,000 bikes at 400 docking stations with over 10,000 docking points. However, the full scheme may not be in place until March 2011 and the London Assembly report indicates that 348 docking stations have been established. (Information from TfL provided on 24 November 2010).

How many docking stations are needed will continue to a subject for discussion, with the London Cycling Campaign arguing that the functionality of the scheme depends on the full complement of 400 docking stations being completed. 

Recently released bike share data highlighted how people in Lyon, France's second-largest Metropolitan area,  make 16,000 trips every day using the Vélo’v scheme. The Velo 'v has 4000 bikes available at nearly 350 stations around the city which has 480,660 inhabitants although the population of its metropolitan area is estimated to be 1,757,180. Despite being many times smaller than London, this scheme has nearly as many docking stations, as are planned for London and two-thirds of the bicycles.

Since it began in 2005, the Velo 'v scheme has tracked the start and destination locations as well as trip time.  Researchers at the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon crunched the data from the 11.6 million bike trips and found that:

• Lyon, the third largest city in France, is traversed via a cluster of narrow, one-way streets which adds to the driving distance for just about any destination. Lyon bike share data shows, however, that bike trip distance is often shorter than what an equivalent car trip might be. Reasons for this might be shortcuts and a great number of wrong way cyclists riding on the sidewalks. There are no bike lanes in Lyon.

• Average cycling speed is about 10 km/hr — about 6 MPH. 

• The fastest cycling speeds are during the morning commute, when the average rises to almost 15 km/hr (9 MPH). In Lyon, this sedate speed is faster than the average driving speed in that congested city.

The Lyon data has also been used to create maps showing the most heavily cycled routes.(See above).

The London Assembly report also raised concerns about how effective the cycle hire scheme had been in encouraging people to switch from car travel. The report states that:

"Our survey found less than one per cent of journeys are replacing those previously made by car; TfL’s planning assumptions were for a five per cent shift from car to bike." (Page 8)

In response to complaints about the lack of bicycles, Serco has doubled its total number of redistribution staff and vehicles but as the report highlights, this in turn has:

 "led to questions about the environmental impact of the scheme. It was originally expected that only electric vehicles would be used for redistribution. Serco is now using 14 electrically powered vehicles, 10 Focus/Mondeo vehicles and, on a temporary basis, three 7.5 ton lorries and four Sprinter vans. It also uses 10 Nissan vans for on-street maintenance. It has told the Committee that it is undertaking a fleet review in light of the different redistribution requirements." (Page 18)

Whilst many (most?) cycling campaigns are supportive of cycle hire schemes there are concerns that such schemes will divert limited resources from other, possibly more cost-effective, projects and initiatives that promote and support cycling.  See for example the comments from one cycle organisation with regard to the proposed San Francisco Penisula Bike Share scheme:

"Dedicating $7.9 million to an unproven, risky project like bike sharing seems a poor use of limited funds, when other bicycle projects have proven track records to replace automobile trips with bicycle trips."

Hopefully, Manchester can learn lessons from other cities that have successfully introduced cycle hire schemes but until more details of any proposed scheme are made available there will remain key questions on both operational issues and potential costs.  Not least, the question of where will the funding come from and will it genuinely be "new" funding or more a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul."  Watch this space.

This committee has not held any meetings...

Am sure that Bolton Council take transport issues very seriously and there will undoubtedly be very good reasons why the Bolton Council Transport Working Group has not held any meetings since May 2010 - but would be interested in hearing what they are.... 

Comments welcome.

Greater Manchester transport... heading in the wrong direction?

At the forthcoming Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) Policy and Resources committee (Friday 19th November) the committee members will consider whether to continue the ban on cycle carriage on Metrolink trams. Whilst no decision has yet to be formally announced, the portents do not look good. The GMPTE press release states that:

"The final recommendation from the working group - to maintain the current position - will be considered by the Authority's Policy & Resources Committee on Friday 19 November." A direction of travel that has been picked up by both local and national media and the main report on cycle carriage recommends that the Committee should:

"endorse the decision reached by the Cycles on Trams Working Group that there should be no trial for the carriage of bicycles on trams and the current policy regarding cycles on trams should remain in place and cyclists should be encouraged to park their bikes at Metrolink stops or use folding bikes and carry them fully covered on trams;"


There are a series of report that the Committee are meant to base any decision on. It is a small sign of progress that these reports are available prior to the meeting via the GMITA website.

One report, entitled "Item 04. Implications and Costs of Tram modifications" states that:

"5.1  The total cost of the modification of the mixed tram fleet would be approximately £3,312,000 when taking into account the costs of design, removal of seats, fitting the space with a bicycle restraining system, project management, risk and contingency allowance.

5.2  Any trial of the carriage of bicycles would be very difficult until all trams have been modified to enable the carriage of bicycles as cyclists would have no idea when the next modified tram will arrive at their chosen boarding point, therefore no meaningful trial could take place prior to the tram refurbishment programme being completed."  and that:

"5.5  The cost of modification to trams for the carriage of bicycles therefore represents poor value for money.

5.6 Funding for the capital works to adapt trams for the carriage of bikes is unsecured."

Whilst it is true that there would now be a cost associated with retrofitting the new trams to be able to carry bicycles this rather neatly sidesteps the point that if, as was agreed in 2003, the new trams had been DESIGNED to carry bicycles then most of these retrofit costs would not apply.

On the 18th November 2002, in a letter to a local newspaper, Concillor Roger Jones (the then GMPTA chair) stated that:
 
“Whilst there is a clear realisation that taking bikes on existing trams is not possible, GMPTE will be purchasing many more trams as part of its third phase of Metrolink expansion out to the airport, Ashton under Lyne and Oldham and Rochdale. The Authority has unanimously agreed to the principle of allowing bikes on trams during non-peak hours, however, this is subject to the resolution of a number of very important issues.”

It is not as if the cycling community has been remiss in reminding GMPTE/GMITA that the Greater Manchester transport system would be a little more integrated if the Metrolink system allowed cycle carriage. See for example, Greater Manchester Cycle Campaign's publications 'Cycle Carriage News' which has been regularly posted to relevant GMITA councillors and GMPTE  officers. In June 2008, Love Your Bike organised a press stunt with cardboard bikes to illustrate how easy it was to carry bikes on the off-peak tram network.

The GMITA reports focus relentlessly on the possible problems and dangers that might be associated with cycle carriage whilst ignoring developments in a wide and growing range of cities in Europe and North America that already have, or are introducing, public transit networks that permit (or in some cases positively encourage) people to combine their cycle journeys with the different public transport modes. For example, the table below was part of the Love Your bike and GMCC submissions to the GMITA Cycles on Trams Working Group. The Koln tram system is both more complex and larger than Manchester. It has 11 lines and carries nearly ten times the number of daily passengers. Koln utilises similar trams to Manchester (the Metrolink M5000 tram is a slightly modified version of the K5000), switching between rail lines (linking Bonn) as well as travelling through the city centre, and both being regulated via the driver. 

If you haven't already spotted it, the big difference is that Koln permits passengers to travel with their bicycles.  The Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority has chosen not to allow the integration of bicycles with the Metrolink or bus services - this is in marked contrast to many other cities worldwide who have been able to overcome the barriers and obstacles that GMITA/GMPTE seem to think are such a problem.

One of the key reasons given for continuing with the ban on cycle carriage on the Manchester trams, is that the £3.3 million retrofit costs are too high and not currently secure. But these costs are so high, precisely because the GMITA/GMPTE failed to ensure that the new trams ordered were configured to be able to carry bikes.  The GMPTE bureacratic machine, which appears hostile to bicycles travelling on the public transport network, has played a blinder !




There is also a report purporting to show that there are no clear off-peak periods on the Metrolink system and a new public survey that shows a lower level of support than the passenger survey looking at people's attitude towards cycle carriage which was carried out by GMPTE in 2002 but never published.


What the GMPTE press release doesn't mention and the media don't seem bothered to comment on is that before respondents got to answer the questions about cycle carriage they were required to read (and indicate that they had understood) the following:


"If bikes were allowed to be carried on trams, there are several implications as a result:
 
1. To satisfy UK safety regulations, seats would need to be removed to allow enough space to enable bikes to be carried, for example:
 
o To allow 2 bikes per tram – approximately four to six seats would need to be removed
o To allow 4 bikes per tram – approximately 8 to 12 seats would need to be removed
 
2. The number of bikes allowed on a tram at any one time would need to be self regulated by the cyclists and other passengers as the trams do not carry onboard Metrolink staff in the saloon at all times.
 
3. The carriage of bikes may introduce a risk of collision with the bike by passengers, especially if the tram had to stop sharply.

4. Please tick to confirm you have read and understood these implications.  Yes   No."



It is interesting that the Committee report on cycle carriage (Item 08) notes that the evidence from Northern Rail (who are enthusiastic about encouraging passengers to travel with their cycles) have reported that:


"They have no record of accidents involving passengers and cycles, although the occasional claim (one or two per annum) for dry cleaning is presented where contact has been made by clothing and bicycle chains or other dirty parts of the bike."

and even the (in)famous Mott MacDonald report stated that:

"It should be noted that from the information obtained from systems where cycles are permitted on trams, none have reported any safety issues or referred to any claims resulting from bicycle carriage."

So what do you do if you don't really want to facilitate cycle carriage on the Metrolink system? How about creating a potential concern (see Point 3 above) - even though all the evidence you have from your own research and consultants suggests that there is a minimal risk of such an event happening - and introduce this into the survey before the respondent answers the key questions... I think this is what researchers would call a "loaded question".


Which makes it all the more surprising (and encouraging) that 53% of people still supported the principle of cycle carriage on Metrolink. You can see the survey questionnaire for yourself here.

In some ways we shouldn't be surprised at this continuing hostility towards cycle carriage - the bureacratic process behind the decision in January 2010 to continue with the ban on cycle carriage was a disgrace, even one of the councillors at a subsequent meeting described it as "shoddy and shabby". Despite repeated Freedom of Information requests, the main report by consultants Mott MacDonald, was not made available for public scrutny until after the Capital Projects committee had voted to continue with the ban on cycle carriage. See for example the Manchester Evening News "GMPTE's 'dirty tricks' over bike ban on trams" article.  At the time the Guardian Cycling blog also commented that:

"Now I don't know enough about Manchester's trams to judge the issue with any authority. But overall, it's one of the most depressing transport documents I think I've ever read. If there's a potential problem, they've found it. Cyclists are seen purely as an annoyance, something to be managed."

It is this fixation on the bicycle as a problem combined with the apparent unwillingnes to consider how combining the public transport network with bicycles can help create a truly sustainable and integrated transport system which is so disappointing.  This lack of understanding of why people may want to combine cycle journeys with other public transport modes is epitomised by the comment below which was posted on the Manchester Evening News website in response to the "Metrolink set to stand firm on bike ban after passenger survey" story

"If you are on a bike why do you need to get on a tram. On yer bike..... "

Am assuming this comment was made by a member of the public ... but unfortunately the recent  reports and Committee recommendation would appear to indicate that this same lack of understanding is also prevalent amongst GMITA councillors and GMPTE officers.

More worringly, there is an another report up for discussion at the Committee Meeting on the 19th November. Item 11. "Potential for 'Tram-Train' to play a role in the development of local train services in Greater Manchester" does what it says on the tin and outlines the potential to develop a Tram-Train service across Greater Manchester to replace an unspecified number of heavy rail services.  The report acknowledges a number of key challenges but exhibits a positive, can-do approach suggesting that all these obstacles can be overcome. It is interesting to contrast this can-do approach on a subject which presumably GMPTE officers support with the negative, can't do / problem laden approach to cycle carriage on the tram service.

But clearly if the GMITA/GMPTE get the go ahead to create a Tram-Train network then it follows that there will be more destinations in Greater Manchester that will become inaccessible to people wishing to combine bicycle journeys with the public transport system.


Meanwhile... people in Greater Manchester are being consulted on the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) vision and strategy that amongst other things wants to create a sustainable transport system for Greater Manchester.  As part of LTP3, it is likely that Greater Manchester will make a bid to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund which seeks to support local authorities that introduce (amongst other things):
"Measures could include encouraging walking and cycling, initiatives to improve integration between travel modes and end-to-end journey experiences".

In public transport jargon poor integration between travel modes and poor end-to-end journey experiences are often referred to as the “problem of the last mile”. These are situations where the person’s final destination is up to a mile away from the nearest public transport stop and so they, often quiet reasonably, chose to travel by car. Having the option to use a bicycle for this final stretch makes it more likely that the journey could be made by a combination of public transport and bike, instead of the entire journey being made by car.  

An integrated transport network that enables customers to combine sustainable modes, such as allowing users to combine Metrolink and cycle carriage could help some people overcome the “problem of the last mile”.

Now, bearing in mind that Manchester / Greater Manchester has already been unsuccessful in bids for Cycyling Demonstration City and Sustainable Travel City funding (partly) because of the perceived lack of "high-level" political support and lack of coherent GM wide cycling policies - it will be very interesting to see what the Department for Transport will make of the direction that GMITA is heading in with regard to the integration of cycles with the public transport network in Greater Manchester.

Perhaps we could start by having the vision and committment to follow our European sister cities and design a truly integrated transport system. Perhaps then the "Integrated" in GMITA can then be spoken without any irony.

A list of councillors who are members of the Policy and Resources Commitee is available here 

(see below)
Labour
1 Councillor Andrew Fender (Manchester)  Email: cllr.a.fender@manchester.gov.uk
2 Councillor  David Jones  (Oldham)  Email: david.r.jones@oldham.gov.uk
3 Councillor Alan Godson  (Rochdale) Email: alan.godson@rochdale.gov.uk
4 Councillor Roger Jones (Salford) Email: councillor.jones@salford.gov.uk


5 Councillor  Barry Warner (Salford) Email: Councillor.Warner@salford.gov.uk
6 Councillor Alan Whitehead (Tameside) Email c/o: victoria.fletcher@tameside.gov.uk
7 Councillor Roland Griffin (Trafford)  Email: roland.griffin@trafford.gov.uk
8 Councillor Patricia Holland (Wigan) Email: P.Holland@wigan.gov.uk
9 Councillor Eunice Smethurst (Wigan) Email: E.Smethurst@wigan.gov.uk

Liberal Democrats
10 Councillor Richard Knowles (Oldham)  Email: cllr.r.d.knowles@oldham.gov.uk
11 Councillor Keith Whitmore (Chair) (Manchester) Email: cllr.k.whitmore@manchester.gov.uk
12 Councillor David Wilkinson (Bolton)  Email: david.wilkinson@bolton.gov.uk
13 Councillor Malcolm Bruce: (Rochdale) Email: malcolm.bruce@rochdale.gov.uk
14 Councillor Craig Wright (Stockport)  Email: cllr.craig.wright@stockport.gov.uk
15 Councillor David Sandiford (Manchester) email: cllr.d.sandiford@manchester.gov.uk


Conservatives
16 Councillor Ian Macdonald (Salford)  Email: councillor.macdonald@salford.gov.uk
17 Councillor Barry Theckston (Bury) Email: b.theckston@bury.gov.uk
18 Councillor Doreen Dickinson (Tameside)  Email: doreen.dickinson@tameside.gov.uk
19 Councillor Ian Duckworth (Rochdale) Email: ian.duckworth@rochdale.gov.uk
20 Councillor Brian Rigby (Vice Chair) (Trafford) Email: brian.rigby@trafford.gov.uk


Perhaps you would like to email them ahead of Friday's meeting?


Finally, this blog usually tries to focus on positive suggestions and proposals to improve cycling provision and sustainable transport options in Greater Manchester..... so lets end with some positives. 

The proposals outlined by the Capital Projects committee in January 2010 to increase the level of cycling parking and other cycling infrastructure at Metrolink and bus stations is to be welcomed. The meeting agreed:

"That Recommendation 2 (Endorse the decision that the GMPTE should continue to provide investment for cycle facilities on the Metrolink network, rail stations and any future proposals, such as the anticipated Park and Ride facilities, be endorsed) be strengthened to reflect that GMPTE provide increased investment for cycle facilities on the current Metrolink network , rail stations and any future proposals such as the anticipated Park and Ride facilities."

As always, the devil will be in the detail(ed) plans but this increased expenditure on cycle parking is to be welcomed.



We should also welcome, possibly with a great fanfare and drum roll,  that at the Policy and Resources committee meeting members will consider,  and in all likelihood agree, a report that states:

"3.2 During the meeting on 13th August 2010 it was made apparent that the current policy of allowing the carriage of folding bikes on trams if fully encased is confusing. The terminology `fully encased` is implying to cyclists that the folding cycles must be carried in a hard container.

3.3 In fact the encasement is intended to protect the tram and passengers clothing from soiling and therefore does not need to be a hard enclosure. Most folding cycles are capable of being enclosed in a lightweight bag that folds to pocket size and can be purchased as a specific item from the bike manufacturer (Brompton for example).

3.5 To prevent further confusion it was agreed that the wording of the information posters should be changed to reflect this position. The suggested wording is ‘fully covered’ rather than fully encased."  [Item 05 DDA compliance, folding bikes policy, heavy rail experience. Available here]

This is in response to the criticism of the Metrolink policy that stated that even a folded brompton bicycle needed to be "fully encased". Even though a folded Brompton takes up a lot less space than many small prams or even some bags. (See photo).

A point that was demonstrated with a certain amongt of tongue-in-check by those lovely people at Love Your Bike who decided to board the trams with a range of folding items (deckchairs, ironing boards etc) which do not appear to be prohibited compared to an uncased folded Brompton which is.  You can watch the video here and read the Guardian and BBC articles.

So.. after all this deliberation and despite trams on the Newcastle Metro and Croydon Tramlink allowing folded bicycles to be carried without the needed to be covered - GMITA will change the policy from "fully encased" to "fully covered".  Am wondering whether other passengers will be expected to "fully cover" their shoes or the wheels of prams, buggies or other assorted objects when the outside conditions are wet or muddy!

Book Review : Transport for Suburbia - Beyond the Automobile Age

At nearly £40, the hardback edition is not cheap which unfortunately could limit its readership. This is a real shame as it deserves to be widely read – particularly by Government ministers and officials with responsibility for transport planning. But this is not to suggest that the book is a lifeless, academic or technical presentation of transport policies.

The book’s simple message is that with high levels of co-ordination, public transport can work even in low density suburban areas.

The book provides both anecdotal and detailed evidence of how the lack of co-ordination introduced by the ‘free-market’ approach to public transport (de-regulation) has resulted in falling passenger numbers and poorer services. In a lively and readable style, Mees illustrates how co-ordinated 'European-style' public transport provides a generalizable model of network planning that has worked in a wide range of places such as rural Switzerland, the Brazilian city of Curitiba and the Canadian cities of Toronto and Vancouver. Mees argues that this model can be adapted to suburban, ex-urban and also rural areas to provide an alternative to the car.

The book also raises issues that some in the transport policy and cycling communities would do well to consider. Mees highlights how “some environmentalists are so certain that cycling is the answer to urban transport problem that they are not interested in hearing about public transport – or in many cases, walking.” The book also highlights how many local authorities cycling policies, because they do not form part of a co-ordinated effort to reduce car use, result in tokenistic cycling policies that are “usually poorly thought through, with a focus on stunts and satisfying the demands of the small, but vocal, group of existing cyclists – whose male, middle-class demographic profile mirrors that of transport planners. So measures that appeal to ‘racing’ cyclists, such as showers at work and high-security storage for expensive bikes, predominate at the expense of practical issues like safe cycle paths and reduced speed limits. Where bicycle routes are provided, this is often at the expense of pedestrians, rather than motorists.” (p190). Sound familiar?

Transport for Suburbia – Beyond the Automobile Age, Paul Mees, Earthscan, 2010.  Available from good bookshops and Amazon.

Bike Maintenance - learning to D.I.Y

The leaves are falling, its getting colder and the hours of darkness are increasing... so perhaps now is a good time to give your bicycle that TLC you have been promising it for ages...  and if your bicycle maintenance skills are not all they could be then there are a number of bike maintenance training courses on offer.  

Have listed several courses below - ranging from free to quite expensive. Have not done any of these courses so cannot comment on the quality (or otherwise) and value for money. If your organisation offers cycle maintenance and I have missed you off then please leave a comment.

Suggest you contact the organisation concerned and ask for more details to make sure the training matches your budget and skill level.

In alphabetical order

BikeRight!

Unit 8, 877 Ashton Old Road, Manchester, M11 2NA
Tel: 0161 230 7007

Email: info@bikeright.co.uk

Certified maintenance courses for beginners and the more experienced

"We currently run one day and two day courses which build up your maintenance skills step by step. By working with us you will soon develop the skills needed to keep your bike road-worthy and safe. Courses are for a maximum of 8 people so book early to avoid disappointment - dates are limited to availability. We also run bespoke courses for groups and offer maintenance contracts for bike fleet and pool bike owners.

Basic, intermediate and advanced courses 
By working with us you will soon develop the skills needed to keep your bike road-worthy and safe. Courses are for a max of 8 people so book early!" 

One day overview course – covering the basics
Two day course – the basics and more
Course costs range from £65 to £130.

British Cycling

Stuart Street, Manchester, M11 4DQ

Tel 0161 274 2000end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Learn Bike Maintenance and Repair with the Professionals British Cycling is launching bike maintenance and repair workshops aimed at beginner and intermediate cyclists. Workshops will be delivered by world renowned mechanic Peter ‘Spike’ Taylor. Courses take place at the Manchester Velodrome on Wednesday 27 October 6pm -9.30pm (Beginners); and Thursday 28 October 9.30am – 5.30pm (Intermediate) Stewart Kellett, Director of Recreation and Partnerships, British Cycling said; ‘Manchester is the home of British Cycling as well as thousands of cycle commuters, leisure cyclists and would-be regular cyclists. We know that many would like help to develop their maintenance and repair skills, giving them the confidence to take their cycling further. As the national governing body British Cycling can offer something different. We have the real inside track on maintenance and repair, and a fun, hands-on, expert approach with wide appeal.’

For more info see britishcycling.org.uk/recreation or contact bikemaintenance@britishcycling.org.uk or 0161 274 2049

Course costs range from £65 to £130.

Edinburgh Bicycle Co-operative

7 Wilmslow Road, Rusholme, Manchester, M14 5FT 

Tel: 0161 257 3897 

"And the easiest way to get hands-on mechanical experience is to spend a Saturday or Sunday at one of our day classes where you will be shown how it's done by one of our mechanics. You will then get to practice your newly-learnt skills on your own bike on a proper workstand using the right tools. Choose between the all-day Intensive Class or the half-day Foundation Course. Beginners welcome to either (though if you have a smattering of mechanical experience you might find the Foundation Course too basic)."

Half-Day and Full-Day Classes

Half-Day Foundation Course in Cycle Maintenance
All-Day Intensive Course in Cycle Maintenance
Intensive Cycle Maintenance Course for Women
All-Day Course in Wheel Building

Course costs range £25 to £49.

FW Evans

201 Deansgate, Manchester, M3 3NW.

Tel: 0161 834 6732 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Chill Factor, Trafford Way, Trafford Quays, Manchester, M41 7JA

Tel: 

Are running FREE bi-monthly sessionson basic cycle maintenance in every store.  The staff in the shop have been trained by a Cytech mechanic to demonstrate the best methods of home maintenance and are eager to share these techniques.
The session will cover the following topics:

Punctures/Tube Replacement – some handy tips to make the process stress free! 
Brake Set Up – adjustment of your braking system and how to check for wear 
Gear Set Up – adjustment of your gear system, including how to ‘index’ your gears 
Transmission Cleaning – cleaning of the drive chain and how to check for wear
Q & A – the opportunity to speak directly with one of our trained mechanics
 

Every attendee will also receive a FREE Fix It Home Cycle Maintenance Guide
For more infromation visit: www.evanscycles.com/servicing/free-bike-maintenance-classes

Pedal Mcr

Website

Birch Community Centre

Workshop 3 (24/10/10; 2pm- 4pm): Bike Basics: Brakes- including types of brakes, changing brake cables
and brake blocks.

Workshop 4 (7/11/10; 2pm- 4pm): Bike Basics: Gears-How gears work + correct use of gears (cycling skills); Basic gear adjustments barrel adjusters +
understanding what limit screws do + no adjustments to limit screws and solving common gear problems such as erratic shifting and chain coming off.

To secure your place at the basic bike maintenance workshops please fill in
your details here:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDZZRHIxT2E2RXFXaU9oQ2l...

All workshops are 2 hours long and cost 5.00 benefits/students etc. and 6.50
for employed people. If you would like to do pay in advance for the 4 weeks
then it will be 18/24- you can pay in advance by paypal to nesthebear_23(at)riseup.net

All tools and components (such as cables etc) are included in the cost of the
course. Drop-in is fine but where possible please let me know if you are coming so
that i can bring enough tools etc. (if we are mega short of components compared to
attendants those that have reserved a spot will take priority)

You can email info(at)pedalmcr.org.uk or text 07866734351 for more info.

Well at least they got the colour right !

An earlier blog raised the subject of the inappropriate use of a "cyclist dismount" sign on Princess Street in Manchester City Centre.


Unfortunately it would seem that Manchester's highway maintenance contractors are intent on trying to reverse the recent increase in levels of cycling!

This sign was recently spotted on Stretford Road in Hulme (by the newly demolished Arch pub).  As was previously mentioned the Department for Transport (DfT) Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 (Cyclists at Road Works) section on "Cyclist dismount and footway cycling" states that:

"Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the footway remains open."

The carriageway on Stretford Road is not closed off - so why are people cycling being asked to dismount?  As with any situation when faced with a hazard or obstacle in the road the person cycling simply takes the appropriate action to safely avoid the obstacle  and continue on their journey.

But hey, while the use of the sign may be inappropriate - at least these contractors managed to get the colour of the sign right....  as the DfT guidance notes that:

"In such cases a white-on-red temporary sign "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT AND USE FOOTWAY" may be used. Under Regulation 41 of the "Transport Signs Regulations And General Directions 1994" this can be done without special authorisation if the sign is not used for longer than 6 months." (Page 6).

So.... wrong use of signage, right colour and partially correct wording gives them a 1 out of 3 score.

It is not not clear who installed the temporary pedestrian barriers and the "Cyclists Dismount" sign but the only name and logo on the building site fences is Shepherd.

 Anyone have any contacts within this company - or any Hulme residents care to raise this issue with their local councillors?




Meanwhile, the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) has just launched the consultation on the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) which notes that "[C]omparable European cities have much higher levels of cycling than currently found locally and addressing this disparity will enhance Greater Manchester’s reputation as an international destination" and also boldy states that Greater Manchester authorities will ensure "better maintenance in support of road safety, walking and cycling" and will also "ensure that our infrastructure schemes encourage walking and cycling through their design".  Perhaps someone should tell the Greater Manchester highway contractors about these priorities.


It would seem that several other local authorities have struggled with working out when (and when not) to use "Cyclist Dismount" signs... but at least the meaning of the Mancunian road signs (incorrect, inappropriate  or otherwise) was not "lost in translation" as happened with these Welsh signs!

Trafford finally get on board the bus lane ?

Well here we are in October 2010 and another consultation on a Local Transport Plan (LTP3) is upon us.  A key part of the two previous LTP strategy documents was a focus on work to create a network of quality bus corridors to provide priority routes for public transport bus services across Greater Manchester.

These Quality Bus Corridors (QBCs) are designed to help buses avoid traffic congestion bottlenecks and so help provide a more reliable bus service - they also double up as very wide cycle lanes. 

 

The two photographs are of a bus corridor on Upper Chorlton Road - the north bound carriageway of which falls within Trafford Borough Council's responsibility.  Despite the "bus lane" road markings and the blue sign that makes it very clear that the lane is only meant to be used by buses, cycles and taxis between the hours of 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm (Monday to Friday) - for the best part of the last three years this "bus lane" has functioned as a 24 hour car park facility.

The reasons for this stretch back to 20th September 2007 when Trafford Council sought authorisation for the Upper Chorlton Road, Old Trafford and Edge Lane, Stretford (Reserved Bus Lane) (Peak Hours) Order and announced that:

"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Trafford Borough Council proposes to make an Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The effect of the Order will be to prohibit all vehicles other than buses, pedal cycles and taxis from entering, proceeding or waiting in the bus lanes during the stated days and hours:-

RESERVED BUS LANE - PEAK HOURS
Monday – Friday 0700 – 1000 and 1600 - 1900
Upper Chorlton Road, Old Trafford - north side.

This "Reserved Bus Lane Order on Upper Chorlton Road" became operative on 7^thApril 2008 but according to Trafford Council there were no enforceable waiting restrictions within the bus lane.

Unfortunately, Trafford Council never got round to applying for the powers to be able to enforce ‘moving traffic offences’ (ie travelling in a bus lane).  In August 2009, Trafford Council stated that the "Council may obtain powers to carry out this type of enforcement in the future, but the cost of doing so would probably not be justified, in view of the relatively short lengths of bus lanes that we currently have within Trafford."

It went on to add that "Enforcement of any parking that takes place within a bus lane, by a Civil Enforcement Officer, has proved difficult using the bus lane traffic regulation Order. The Council is therefore considering a proposal to introduce corresponding waiting restrictions, in addition to the bus lane, that could be enforced by its Civil Enforcement Officers, however, the time span for such a proposal is approximately 6-9 months."

Finally, in September 2010, a report has been sent to the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation which stated that Trafford Council wanted "To seek approval to introduce waiting restrictions along Upper Chorlton Road, Old Trafford."  We are seeking confirmation that this request was approved.

So over 3 years after the original Reserved Bus Lane (Peak Orders) Order was submitted, Trafford Council have finally got round to obtaining the necessary powers to stop this "bus lane" from being used as a car parking facility.  We can only hope that any necessary enforcement actions are implemented a little more speedily.... but then again if the rumours that Trafford Council are planning to reduce its Highways Department from the current workforce complement of 28 down to 12 staff are accurate - then the wait for any future bus corridor enforcement may have to wait for many more buses to come along... 

You have until the 24th December 2010 to submit your suggestions and comments on the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) consultation.  Perhaps you might like to comment on bus lanes and parking enforcement..... just a thought !

Any ideas ?

Location: Road works on Princess Street approaching the junction with Whitworth Street in Manchester City Centre. 
Three lanes have been reduced to one - so I can understand the Cycle Lane Closed instruction - what I do not understand is why the instruction for Cyclists to Dismount. 

Am I supposed to get off an walk on the pavement? What is wrong with cycling in the traffic lane as I would normally do? Particularly if I was going straight on or turning right.

Would welcome any suggestions or pointers on the traffic regulations or guidance that the contractors / Manchester Highways could consider for this instruction.....

Update 1 (with thanks to Steve from Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign).

The Department for Transport (DfT) Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 (Cyclists at Road Works) section on "Cyclist dismount and footway cycling" states that:


"Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the footway remains open.

In such cases a white-on-red temporary sign "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT AND USE FOOTWAY" may be used. Under Regulation 41 of the "Transport Signs Regulations And General Directions 1994" this can be done without special authorisation if the sign is not used for longer than 6 months." (Page 6).

From this guidance it would appear that, a) the contractors should have allowed cycling through the road works given that vehicles are still allowed, and b) the sign use may be incorrect as it is the wrong colour, i.e. should be white on red.

A query has been sent to Environment on Call (Manchester City Council) seeking clarification.  Email: contact@manchester.gov.uk


Update 2 : (14th October)  Well at least the sign has been moved...

...onto the pavement.  Am wondering if the sign means that I should get off my bicycle whilst in the road!

Ironically the poster (below right) from United Utilities / Enterprise shows the cycle happily travelling along in a line of traffic. Perhaps their marketing people would like to have a little chat to their road engineering people....

Update 3 : Email from Environment on Call - received 15th October

"Thank you for contacting Environment On Call. The details have been logged on our system. An officer will inspect the location within the next 5 working days."

Hmmm - wonder if the roadworks will have been completed before the officer goes inspecting!


Update 4: Message from Manchester Highway Services - 18th October


"Thank you for your recent email regarding signage relating to cyclist at the above location. I will pass on your comments to the traffic management company working on behalf of United Utilities at this location requesting them to remove any signs that are causing a problem and to also discuss the implications for cyclists at these works.
I would suspect that they need to consider the traffic management implications  in relation to cyclists safety at this location. I believe in this particular case no guidance would have been issued as the company are working for United Utilities. The Authority would work to National guidelines for works affecting cyclists and in view of this I will as stated above speak to the company concerned regarding the removal of the signage highlighted."

Translation? I will ask the contractors to remove the 'cyclists dismount' sign... well at least I think that is what this means but to misquote George Bush (Junior) I may have misunderstoodificated.




 Update 5: Spot the difference!  21st October

So finally.... after seven days the sign has gone. Am assuming it was as a result of MCC Highways requesting that the contractors remove the sign - alternatively it may have been a mildly miffed cyclist deciding to do a little DIY recycling ....perish the thought!













Update 6: 27th October

Oh dear, it would seem that we are back to the drawing board.  It would seem that the contractors have gone away, read the DfT guidance as it relates to the required colour schemes (see above) but ignored the substantive part of the guidance... eg the bit that says very clearly...

"Where access is permitted for motor vehicles, "Cyclist Dismount" signs should not be used. The hazards to cyclists at roadworks are rarely great enough to justify this measure. In any case, cyclists are likely to ignore such instructions. The only situation where cyclists should be advised to dismount is where the carriageway is closed off but the footway remains open. "

So, need to have a think about what to do next. Ideas and suggestions most welcome - please leave a comment on the blog.

Thanks. 

A Brief Encounter (bike hire or take it with you)

The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), has been researching the potential for cycle hire at UK rail stations.

This has involved gathering case study evidence and interviewing stakeholders and ATOC has produced a short web survey to get the views of as many cyclists and rail passengers as possible.

You can link to the survey here.

Are we on the pavement to nowhere ? (with apologies to Talking Heads)

Several years ago the Warrington Cycle Campaign became (in)famous for producing the Crap Cycle lanes book (subtitled 50 worst cycle lanes in Britain).

Well, if the growing number of complaints about the cycle lane developments on Manchester Road in Chorlton are anything to go by there may soon be a "Crap Cycle Lanes on Pavements" edition being produced. 

A recent article in the South Manchester Reporter highlighted concerns from local people in Chorlton about the sudden appearance of white paint cycle markings on a narrow stretch of pavement alongside the Unicorn store on Manchester Road.

In fact, this "shared use" section of National Cycle Route 55 has been in the planning stage for quite a while and was sent out for consultation by Manchester City Council's Engineering Services in late 2008 / early 2009. At the time the consultation document stated that "It is anticipated that the proposed scheme will be implemented in the Spring of 2009." Clearly the timescale slipped a little!


The blue circle signs on Kensington Road indicate that this shared use route is considered as an "unsegregated shared facility which is a cycle track with a right of way on foot".



The consultation document also stated that the purpose of this section of Off Highway Shared Use Area on NCR 55 was "To provide a safe crossing point for the route over Manchester Road,  it is proposed to introduce an unsegregated shared use area from Albany Road in the south to allow access to the existing controlled crossing outside Chorlton Leisure centre, demarked through the use of shared use signage and corduroy paving to assist those pedestrians with visual impairments."

The South Manchester Reporter article quoted Pele Bhamber, Manchester City Council’s head of highways services as saying that "The preferred option was to use the pavement and the businesses forecourt area as a shared space for pedestrians and cyclists, rather than the removal of the limited parking bays to the front of the shops." 

Which seems to be a little bit at odds with the text in the consultation document that stated: "To allow for two-way cycle access to the controlled crossing on the west side of Manchester Road, it is proposed that the limited waiting bay outside 109 Manchester Road be removed and built up to footway level to provide additional width for shared use operation and provide
access to the controlled crossing from Kensington Road in the west."  See the consultation map for more details.

 
Whilst the physical engineering work will have been done by Manchester's Highways Services
department - the national cycle route design and co-ordination is undertaken by the national charity, Sustrans.  Who produce an "Information Sheet on Shared Use Routes" which acknowledges concerns about the potential for conflict between different user groups accessing shared space.

"There is concern in some quarters that poorly designed shared use facilities could lead to an increase in illegal pavement cycling. The fear is that if there is little distinction between a poorly designed shared use route and an ordinary pavement, cyclists may gain the impression that it is acceptable to ride on pavements."

The Sustrans Information Sheet also provides the following guidance with regard to the width of shared use facilities: "On well used unsegregated shared use paths we recommend a minimum of 3m width. Where paths are lightly used and there is a clear verge on both sides a minimum width of 2m may be sufficient."

It is difficult to see how this section of shared use pavement meets the requirements of Sustrans
own design guidance.

In the report 'Support for cycling as mode of transport', presented to the Manchester City Council - Communities and Neighbourhoods Overview and Scrutiny Committee in November 2009, it was stated that: "When considering the safe shared or segregated use of off-road facilities for
pedestrians and cyclists, the City Council uses guidance laid out in the Department
for Transport, Local Transport Note 02/08 - Cycle Infrastructure Design." It was also stated that the overall number of reported pedestrian vs cyclist casualty figures for the three-year period (01/11/04 to 31/10/08) was thirteen. These included:

• Six involving pedestrians walking into the carriageway in front of cycles;

• Six involving cyclists illegally riding on the footway colliding with pedestrians;

• One cyclist colliding with a pedestrian stood in the off-road segregated cycle track on Oxford Road at the junction with Grafton Street in 2005.

Judging by the volume of complaints regarding cycling on pavements in the letters and comments pages of local Manchester media - an obvious problem with these figures is that most people do not appear to formally report the many "near misses" that occur on shared use areas in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what increase (if any) in casualty figures occurs for this shared use route.

But back to the Department for Transport Local Transport Note 02/08 or "Cycle Infrastructure Design" guide.  This states that "In general, offroad cycle routes in urban areas tend to be the least desired option, and it is usually better to cater for urban cyclists onroad if this is practicable. Offroad routes are often created by converting existing footways/footpaths and, if such routes are not carefully designed, pedestrians may view them as a reduction in quality of provision."  It also contains an interesting Hierarchy of Provision (below) that advises which options local authorities should consider when designing cycling infrastructure.

It is interesting to note that "Conversion of footways/footpaths to shared use for pedestrians and cyclists" comes in the "Consider last" category.  

The Cycle Infrastructure Design guide draws considerably on the earlier Local Transport Note 2/86 Shared Use by Cyclists and Pedestrians report published in 1986. This states that:


"Unsegregated facilities: No kind of segregation is likely to be effective if some users are likely to move regularly across the segregating line. For segregation by white line, colour contrast, or surface texture, the likelihood of ineffective operation is present for any facility whose width is less than those suggested in Table 2 (above). Consequently, if road safety gains merit conversion of such a narrow foot way or footpath this should normally be to unsegregated use. (6.19)"


and that: "Unsegregated shared facilities have been provided, and have operated safely, down to 2.0 metres with considerable - some 100 to 200 per hour - use by pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists have also safely passed pedestrians, including those with prams and wheelchairs, on even narrower unsegregated shared facilities down to 1.5 metres wide where there have been grass verges. (6.21)"


Well so much for the national guidance - how does this match up with the cycle infrastructure that has been delivered on the ground in Chorlton?

After crossing Manchester Road at the pedestrian crossing, the National Cycle Route 55 continues along the Manchester Road pavement until turning left onto the pavement of  Kensington Road.

This section of pavement may nominally meet the 2m metre width requirement - but without adequate (any !) enforcement to prevent pavement parking and combined with wheelie bins on the pavement - in reality this route will be much narrow making the shared use of this space even more difficult. 

Many people regularly cycle on the pavement because they do not feel safe cycling on the roads due to the speed & volume of traffic as well as the aggressive driving behaviour of some road users. Clearly, there is a real need to provide  safer routes for people who are not confident or experienced enough to cycle on the road network. High quality / well designed shared use facilities can help meet this need.

But according to the national Cycle Infrastructure Design guide "Conversion of footways/footpaths to shared use for pedestrians and cyclists" is supposed to be the last option considered - after "Traffic volume reduction",  "Traffic speed reduction",  "Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic management", "Reallocation of carriageway space" and "Cycle tracks away from roads" options have been explored.


The consultation documents do not appear to have offered any other options from the "Hierarchy of Provision" and there are real concerns that poorly designed "shared use" schemes are a typical English "lowest cost" approach to cycle infrastructure.  Instead of re-engineering the roadspace to create high-quality European-style segregated cycle routes - we settle for painting "white paint" cycle designs on pavements that are too narrow and will (almost by design) create conflicts between pedestrians, elderly / disabled people and cyclists.  

If you want to like to take this issue up with the Council then you can of course contact your local councillor or communicate with:  Enviroment On Call
By telephone: 0161 954 9000
Email: contact@manchester.gov.uk