On 7/10/2025 1:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<https://youtu.be/OunBRdTIe3w?si=v2Crsm2yMmF6aS5I>
Essentially numbers of cyclists are up and by quite some
margin
particularly around Central london, aka City of London and
areas like
Hackney.
The combo of direct high quality bike lanes, and Low
traffic Zones ie
restricting motorists though traffic, which has been
around for nearly 100
years but this is the new term for it, but it’s quite
effective, I use a
few regularly be that by bike or car, or sometimes both.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-
low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-
third?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other>
May explain LTZ as not sure how common at all they are in
the US, as ever
get a vocal minority who dislike and claim well falsehoods
aka the traffic
is just moved and worse and so on, which is not backed up
by any evidence.
"Low Traffic Neighborhoods" have the U.S. nickname "Bicycle
Boulevards." They're streets where cars are permitted but
discouraged, and/or are held to very low speeds. I've
encountered them mostly in Portland, Oregon and a few
streets in Columbus, Ohio, both many years ago. They used
things like "one way" restrictions, certain barriers, speed
bumps, etc. to slow or restrict cars while permitting nearly
unobstructed bicycling.
In my experience, they worked well. I think they primarily
deterred "rat running," or zooming through neighborhoods
when nearby major roads were congested. They cut down on
motor vehicle traffic and made bicycling more pleasant. I
think they were much better than on-street sidepaths,
"protected" or not.
BTW, I find things like the YouTube video at the top of your
post much less convincing than, say, actual traffic counts
and other data. I've seen too many such videos and photos
shot with very careful planning to maximize the density of
cyclists in the frame, including even filming special bike
events and pretending they were normal traffic.
On 7/10/2025 1:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<https://youtu.be/OunBRdTIe3w?si=v2Crsm2yMmF6aS5I>
Essentially numbers of cyclists are up and by quite some margin
particularly around Central london, aka City of London and areas like
Hackney.
The combo of direct high quality bike lanes, and Low traffic Zones ie
restricting motorists though traffic, which has been around for nearly 100 >> years but this is the new term for it, but it’s quite effective, I use a >> few regularly be that by bike or car, or sometimes both.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other>
May explain LTZ as not sure how common at all they are in the US, as ever
get a vocal minority who dislike and claim well falsehoods aka the traffic >> is just moved and worse and so on, which is not backed up by any evidence.
"Low Traffic Neighborhoods" have the U.S. nickname "Bicycle Boulevards." They're streets where cars are permitted but discouraged, and/or are
held to very low speeds. I've encountered them mostly in Portland,
Oregon and a few streets in Columbus, Ohio, both many years ago. They
used things like "one way" restrictions, certain barriers, speed bumps,
etc. to slow or restrict cars while permitting nearly unobstructed
bicycling.
In my experience, they worked well. I think they primarily deterred "rat running," or zooming through neighborhoods when nearby major roads were congested. They cut down on motor vehicle traffic and made bicycling
more pleasant. I think they were much better than on-street sidepaths, "protected" or not.
BTW, I find things like the YouTube video at the top of your post much
less convincing than, say, actual traffic counts and other data. I've
seen too many such videos and photos shot with very careful planning to maximize the density of cyclists in the frame, including even filming
special bike events and pretending they were normal traffic.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 1:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:At least with london it’s a case by case, ie protected cycle lanes that are more with a eye on longer distance commuters, and LTN for local traffic, so Protected cycle lane along the main road/shopping centre, and LTN on the backstreets which makes the area more walkable and drivable for locals.
<https://youtu.be/OunBRdTIe3w?si=v2Crsm2yMmF6aS5I>"Low Traffic Neighborhoods" have the U.S. nickname "Bicycle Boulevards."
Essentially numbers of cyclists are up and by quite some margin
particularly around Central london, aka City of London and areas like
Hackney.
The combo of direct high quality bike lanes, and Low traffic Zones ie
restricting motorists though traffic, which has been around for nearly 100 >>> years but this is the new term for it, but it’s quite effective, I use a >>> few regularly be that by bike or car, or sometimes both.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other>
May explain LTZ as not sure how common at all they are in the US, as ever >>> get a vocal minority who dislike and claim well falsehoods aka the traffic >>> is just moved and worse and so on, which is not backed up by any evidence. >>
They're streets where cars are permitted but discouraged, and/or are
held to very low speeds. I've encountered them mostly in Portland,
Oregon and a few streets in Columbus, Ohio, both many years ago. They
used things like "one way" restrictions, certain barriers, speed bumps,
etc. to slow or restrict cars while permitting nearly unobstructed
bicycling.
In my experience, they worked well. I think they primarily deterred "rat
running," or zooming through neighborhoods when nearby major roads were
congested. They cut down on motor vehicle traffic and made bicycling
more pleasant. I think they were much better than on-street sidepaths,
"protected" or not.
For example if I’m riding to the Cheese market in Chiswick, I’ll use the bike lane as that takes me directly and quickly there, but if I’m going to Fulham palace on the river, then I’ll use the back street parallel to the main road that is within a LTN.
I suspect with US zoning LTN would be less useful, ie works at small scale and essentially walkable.
BTW, I find things like the YouTube video at the top of your post much
less convincing than, say, actual traffic counts and other data. I've
seen too many such videos and photos shot with very careful planning to
maximize the density of cyclists in the frame, including even filming
special bike events and pretending they were normal traffic.
Traffic counters have in central/city of london shown more and more junction/roads where bikes numbers are more than cars. Particularly stuff like the Embankment as that was arguably the start of this, and hence they knew that folks would take photos of it clear of bikes and say it’s not used! So needed to have the data to prove that it was used!
Am 10.07.2025 um 23:37 schrieb Roger Merriman:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 1:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:At least with london it’s a case by case, ie protected cycle lanes that are
<https://youtu.be/OunBRdTIe3w?si=v2Crsm2yMmF6aS5I>"Low Traffic Neighborhoods" have the U.S. nickname "Bicycle Boulevards." >>> They're streets where cars are permitted but discouraged, and/or are
Essentially numbers of cyclists are up and by quite some margin
particularly around Central london, aka City of London and areas like
Hackney.
The combo of direct high quality bike lanes, and Low traffic Zones ie
restricting motorists though traffic, which has been around for nearly 100 >>>> years but this is the new term for it, but it’s quite effective, I use a >>>> few regularly be that by bike or car, or sometimes both.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other>
May explain LTZ as not sure how common at all they are in the US, as ever >>>> get a vocal minority who dislike and claim well falsehoods aka the traffic >>>> is just moved and worse and so on, which is not backed up by any evidence. >>>
held to very low speeds. I've encountered them mostly in Portland,
Oregon and a few streets in Columbus, Ohio, both many years ago. They
used things like "one way" restrictions, certain barriers, speed bumps,
etc. to slow or restrict cars while permitting nearly unobstructed
bicycling.
In my experience, they worked well. I think they primarily deterred "rat >>> running," or zooming through neighborhoods when nearby major roads were
congested. They cut down on motor vehicle traffic and made bicycling
more pleasant. I think they were much better than on-street sidepaths,
"protected" or not.
more with a eye on longer distance commuters, and LTN for local traffic, so >> Protected cycle lane along the main road/shopping centre, and LTN on the
backstreets which makes the area more walkable and drivable for locals.
For example if I’m riding to the Cheese market in Chiswick, I’ll use the >> bike lane as that takes me directly and quickly there, but if I’m going to >> Fulham palace on the river, then I’ll use the back street parallel to the >> main road that is within a LTN.
I suspect with US zoning LTN would be less useful, ie works at small scale >> and essentially walkable.
BTW, I find things like the YouTube video at the top of your post much
less convincing than, say, actual traffic counts and other data. I've
seen too many such videos and photos shot with very careful planning to
maximize the density of cyclists in the frame, including even filming
special bike events and pretending they were normal traffic.
Traffic counters have in central/city of london shown more and more
junction/roads where bikes numbers are more than cars. Particularly stuff
like the Embankment as that was arguably the start of this, and hence they >> knew that folks would take photos of it clear of bikes and say it’s not
used! So needed to have the data to prove that it was used!
When I was serching for "automatic bicycle traffic counters London", I
was led to
<https://cityoflondon.eco-counter.com/?siteId=300020366>
which reminded me of the existence of "London, Ontario".
At first sight, counts of 1k or 2k bicycles did not look too bad until I noticed this was per week rather than per day ;-(
On 7/10/2025 5:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Bike lanes, yes; bike riders using them, no.
On 7/10/2025 1:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:At least with london it’s a case by case, ie protected cycle lanes that are >> more with a eye on longer distance commuters, and LTN for local traffic, so >> Protected cycle lane along the main road/shopping centre, and LTN on the
<https://youtu.be/OunBRdTIe3w?si=v2Crsm2yMmF6aS5I>"Low Traffic Neighborhoods" have the U.S. nickname "Bicycle Boulevards." >>> They're streets where cars are permitted but discouraged, and/or are
Essentially numbers of cyclists are up and by quite some margin
particularly around Central london, aka City of London and areas like
Hackney.
The combo of direct high quality bike lanes, and Low traffic Zones ie
restricting motorists though traffic, which has been around for nearly 100 >>>> years but this is the new term for it, but it’s quite effective, I use a >>>> few regularly be that by bike or car, or sometimes both.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other>
May explain LTZ as not sure how common at all they are in the US, as ever >>>> get a vocal minority who dislike and claim well falsehoods aka the traffic >>>> is just moved and worse and so on, which is not backed up by any evidence. >>>
held to very low speeds. I've encountered them mostly in Portland,
Oregon and a few streets in Columbus, Ohio, both many years ago. They
used things like "one way" restrictions, certain barriers, speed bumps,
etc. to slow or restrict cars while permitting nearly unobstructed
bicycling.
In my experience, they worked well. I think they primarily deterred "rat >>> running," or zooming through neighborhoods when nearby major roads were
congested. They cut down on motor vehicle traffic and made bicycling
more pleasant. I think they were much better than on-street sidepaths,
"protected" or not.
backstreets which makes the area more walkable and drivable for locals.
For example if I’m riding to the Cheese market in Chiswick, I’ll use the
bike lane as that takes me directly and quickly there, but if I’m going to >> Fulham palace on the river, then I’ll use the back street parallel to the
main road that is within a LTN.
I suspect with US zoning LTN would be less useful, ie works at small scale >> and essentially walkable.
BTW, I find things like the YouTube video at the top of your post much
less convincing than, say, actual traffic counts and other data. I've
seen too many such videos and photos shot with very careful planning to
maximize the density of cyclists in the frame, including even filming
special bike events and pretending they were normal traffic.
Traffic counters have in central/city of london shown more and more
junction/roads where bikes numbers are more than cars. Particularly stuff
like the Embankment as that was arguably the start of this, and hence they >> knew that folks would take photos of it clear of bikes and say it’s not
used! So needed to have the data to prove that it was used!
it’s noted in the film though it’s not really a data heavy video but more
cultural.
TFL if one wishes has the data, plus as the counters sometimes fall over
are some folks keeping a log! Which personally seems like an odd thing to
do with one’s time!
What I like is the range of cyclists you see now, central London was brave >> fast male roadies, of which there is still plenty as your not going to ride >> 15/20 miles in from the Suburbs unless your fairly fit bike infrastructure >> or not.
But as well as those folks, is lots of other types who you didn’t see
before such as cargo bikes be that mums and kids or delivery’s and so on. >Well, it's good that's happening. I'm not seeing much of it in America.
Yesterday I had a young guy visit to consult with me on such matters.
He's on a team of university students trying to promote bike use, but
he's getting disillusioned, largely because the bike lanes - even
"protected" ones - are going totally unused.
And he was asking me about the bi-directional ones, "What are you
supposed to do when you come to the end of it?" (meaning on the wrong
side of the road). I told him I have no idea. Neither he nor I use them.
We use the adjacent road, as legal vehicle operators.
On 7/10/2025 5:37 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Well, it's good that's happening. I'm not seeing much of it in America.
On 7/10/2025 1:39 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:At least with london it’s a case by case, ie protected cycle lanes that are
<https://youtu.be/OunBRdTIe3w?si=v2Crsm2yMmF6aS5I>"Low Traffic Neighborhoods" have the U.S. nickname "Bicycle Boulevards." >>> They're streets where cars are permitted but discouraged, and/or are
Essentially numbers of cyclists are up and by quite some margin
particularly around Central london, aka City of London and areas like
Hackney.
The combo of direct high quality bike lanes, and Low traffic Zones ie
restricting motorists though traffic, which has been around for nearly 100 >>>> years but this is the new term for it, but it’s quite effective, I use a >>>> few regularly be that by bike or car, or sometimes both.
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other>
May explain LTZ as not sure how common at all they are in the US, as ever >>>> get a vocal minority who dislike and claim well falsehoods aka the traffic >>>> is just moved and worse and so on, which is not backed up by any evidence. >>>
held to very low speeds. I've encountered them mostly in Portland,
Oregon and a few streets in Columbus, Ohio, both many years ago. They
used things like "one way" restrictions, certain barriers, speed bumps,
etc. to slow or restrict cars while permitting nearly unobstructed
bicycling.
In my experience, they worked well. I think they primarily deterred "rat >>> running," or zooming through neighborhoods when nearby major roads were
congested. They cut down on motor vehicle traffic and made bicycling
more pleasant. I think they were much better than on-street sidepaths,
"protected" or not.
more with a eye on longer distance commuters, and LTN for local traffic, so >> Protected cycle lane along the main road/shopping centre, and LTN on the
backstreets which makes the area more walkable and drivable for locals.
For example if I’m riding to the Cheese market in Chiswick, I’ll use the >> bike lane as that takes me directly and quickly there, but if I’m going to >> Fulham palace on the river, then I’ll use the back street parallel to the >> main road that is within a LTN.
I suspect with US zoning LTN would be less useful, ie works at small scale >> and essentially walkable.
BTW, I find things like the YouTube video at the top of your post much
less convincing than, say, actual traffic counts and other data. I've
seen too many such videos and photos shot with very careful planning to
maximize the density of cyclists in the frame, including even filming
special bike events and pretending they were normal traffic.
Traffic counters have in central/city of london shown more and more
junction/roads where bikes numbers are more than cars. Particularly stuff
like the Embankment as that was arguably the start of this, and hence they >> knew that folks would take photos of it clear of bikes and say it’s not
used! So needed to have the data to prove that it was used!
it’s noted in the film though it’s not really a data heavy video but more
cultural.
TFL if one wishes has the data, plus as the counters sometimes fall over
are some folks keeping a log! Which personally seems like an odd thing to
do with one’s time!
What I like is the range of cyclists you see now, central London was brave >> fast male roadies, of which there is still plenty as your not going to ride >> 15/20 miles in from the Suburbs unless your fairly fit bike infrastructure >> or not.
But as well as those folks, is lots of other types who you didn’t see
before such as cargo bikes be that mums and kids or delivery’s and so on.
Bike lanes, yes; bike riders using them, no.
Yesterday I had a young guy visit to consult with me on such matters.
He's on a team of university students trying to promote bike use, but
he's getting disillusioned, largely because the bike lanes - even
"protected" ones - are going totally unused.
And he was asking me about the bi-directional ones, "What are you
supposed to do when you come to the end of it?" (meaning on the wrong
side of the road). I told him I have no idea. Neither he nor I use them.
We use the adjacent road, as legal vehicle operators.
On 7/11/2025 7:01 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Yesterday I had a young guy visit to consult with me on such matters.
He's on a team of university students trying to promote bike use, but
he's getting disillusioned, largely because the bike lanes - even
"protected" ones - are going totally unused.
Considering your zoning so distance to things someone might travel to, a
segregated bike lane particularly the somewhat compromised US one’s, aren’t >> a silver bullet, needs to be part of network of roads that folks like
cycling on.
Regarding "distance to things," I do think mixed land use (residences,
shops, etc) in high density is key for utility cycling vs. auto use. The >areas of Portland, Oregon that bumped up its bike mode share are flat >terrain, dense old grid-style neighborhoods with shops, grocery stores
etc. less than a mile from most residences. At least, that's how it
seemed to me when I used to visit there frequently.
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania is an old city with similar characteristics -
that is, many shops, bars, restaurants etc. within short distances of
many homes. But it has fierce hills. In the more level areas near the >universities, students have long used bikes. Ebikes have now made
cycling practical for many more Pittsburgh folks. But auto use still >dominates by far even in the older areas. In the outer areas, travel is
100% by car.
To get that high density mixed use, it's very helpful to start with a
city that's been in place since, oh, at least 1800 AD. In the U.S. any
area built up after about 1930 was designed with cars in mind, meaning
low density and long distances between traffic generators.
On 7/11/2025 7:01 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Yesterday I had a young guy visit to consult with me on such matters.
He's on a team of university students trying to promote bike use, but
he's getting disillusioned, largely because the bike lanes - even
"protected" ones - are going totally unused.
Considering your zoning so distance to things someone might travel to, a
segregated bike lane particularly the somewhat compromised US one’s, aren’t
a silver bullet, needs to be part of network of roads that folks like
cycling on.
Regarding "distance to things," I do think mixed land use (residences,
shops, etc) in high density is key for utility cycling vs. auto use. The areas of Portland, Oregon that bumped up its bike mode share are flat terrain, dense old grid-style neighborhoods with shops, grocery stores
etc. less than a mile from most residences. At least, that's how it
seemed to me when I used to visit there frequently.
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania is an old city with similar characteristics -
that is, many shops, bars, restaurants etc. within short distances of
many homes. But it has fierce hills. In the more level areas near the universities, students have long used bikes. Ebikes have now made
cycling practical for many more Pittsburgh folks. But auto use still dominates by far even in the older areas. In the outer areas, travel is
100% by car.
To get that high density mixed use, it's very helpful to start with a
city that's been in place since, oh, at least 1800 AD. In the U.S. any
area built up after about 1930 was designed with cars in mind, meaning
low density and long distances between traffic generators.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 35:22:02 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,146 |