What distance should cycling be promoted for?

monument

I'm starting a new thread here rather than bring another go way, way off topic. But everybody's input is welcome... anyway...

What distance should cycling be promoted for? Should there be any max distance at all?

From my thinking, for the general population, 5km or less is the very low hanging "low hanging fruit", a lot of those in transport planning and others would stop here and let the rest get on with it but not really push it, but that to me is underselling cycling.

At an average speed of 15km, you get:

2km = 8mins
3km = 12mins
5km = 20mins
7km = 27mins
8km = 32mins
15km = 1hour

I had 15km in mind and then found Department of Transport fact sheet claiming census data showed average speeds of 12km within the canals and 14km within the M50. 15km give or take seems to pop up in a few places online as an average urban cycling commuting speed, but it does seem to be lower-to-middle average speed.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Personally I think using 9km as the commuting radius is too large if you're focusing on cycling, and especially walking. PT has the biggest potential for modal shift for the 85% of commutes you mention

Why?

9km is only 32mins at an average speed of 15km/h.

Outside of those who live and work/study on a public transport route, cycling is faster and more predictable. For public transport you have to often walk to and from the stop or station, and then wait for the bus / tram / train, but with cycling you just go.

EDIT: Using one of my old commutes as an example, Parkgate Street to DCU was around 30mins by bike at first and down to around 25mins after a short time. To take public transport it was 3min walk to bus or Luas and wait of up to 5mins (or more if just depending on bus), then 10-15min to O'Connell Street, 4-5min walk to the bus stop, 10min+ wait for the bus and something like 20min+ on a good day to DCU, and then a 5min + walk depending on where on campus a class was etc. That's about an hour on public transport compared to less than half of that on the bike.

monument

A bit of extra food for thought, from Cycling in the Netherlands (PDF):

More cyclists in commuter traffic.
Until recently, a maximum cycling distance of 7.5 km was considered realistic. However, more and more interlocal commuter routes are being designed with few obstacles and sometimes even real bicycle motorways. In the framework of the Fileproof project, five such routes were constructed. All over the country, there is interest in cycle routes for longer distances. As a result, distances of up to 15 km are achievable, with cyclists able to reach speeds of 25-30 km/hour. This means that cyclists are not much slower than other modes of transport and in congested areas they may be much faster. There is therefore a huge opportunity here to use bicycles for better accessibility and less congestion. Employers are also starting to promote bicycle use more, also with regard to improving health. In accordance with the Environmental Management Act, businesses are obliged to minimise emissions caused by transport to and from the company. This means that bicycle use (0 emissions) must also be stimulated. In autumn 2008, the Mobility Management Task Force, in which employers and government are working together to stimulate alternatives to car use, will introduce employers’ measures to stimulate bicycle use, such as bicycle compensation and the introduction of a mobility budget. The latter is an exceptionally powerful method for stimulating bicycle use. The system, which is already in use at various companies, means that employees receive a fixed budget for their commuter travel. From this amount they pay all the actual costs of commuter travel, such as car costs, on-site parking costs, season tickets for public transport, etc. Any money left over is income for the employee. Because the bicycle is by far the cheapest mode of transport, employees who cycle to work will have a great financial advantage.

And the Dains are doing something along the same lines.

We're a long way from this? No, we're not. Take the kissing gates off the Grand Canal Greenway and you've got 8km with just three stops to cross roads -- add in better priority and sensors and that could be even better. Fill in the gap between the city and Inchicore (as the city council have been planning), and there's another bit.

If done right, the planned and partly built coastal and Royal Canal routes offer more potential. There's also loads of potential on road as well, but having these type of canal and coastal cycle routes can help speed up trips, even those only partly on such routes.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Why?

9km is only 32mins at an average speed of 15km/h.

Outside of those who live and work/study on a public transport route, cycling is faster and more predictable. For public transport you have to often walk to and from the stop or station, and then wait for the bus / tram / train, but with cycling you just go.

When I cycled c. 12km one way to work I got sweaty. No shower facilities at work, but since it was not my idea to relocate the workplace in order to substantially reduce the boss's commute by SUV from a palatial "one off" residence in the country, I decided it was not my problem!

However, many if not most other commuters may not relish the thought of profuse sweating on the way to work, and maybe their colleagues or clients won't either.

Distances of 3-5 km are easy, IMO. Just about getting warmed up in mid-winter.

Here's an example from this island of what you're up against in terms of 'selling' active commuting.

Derry's new "Peace Bridge" opened this summer, giving cyclists and pedestrians a short-cut from the Waterside to the city side. Because the short-cut reduced the distance from Waterside to schools in the city to below the 3-mile (say 5 km) eligibility distance for school bus transport, there was uproar when the free pass was withdrawn from some families.

Read on:

http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/News/Charity-helping-people-get-on-their-bike-in-Derry-

http://www.londonderrysentinel.co.uk/news/local/college_pupils_forced_to_walk_1_2998426

http://www.derryjournal.com/news/local/derek_using_bridge_to_make_time_1_3086208

http://wimps.tv/topics/peace-bridge-affects-students-free-bus-passes/

tomasrojo

I think distances of up to 10km each way are entirely possible for most people. From what I hear them say, I think quite a few people for some reason think that each kilometre is more work on a bike than walking, when it's clearly much less work.

Iwannahurl

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think distances of up to 10km each way are entirely possible for most people. From what I hear them say, I think quite a few people for some reason think that each kilometre is more work on a bike than walking, when it's clearly much less work.

It depends on what you mean by "possible".

Sometimes small things matter a lot on a cycle commute, so you would have to think of ways to meet a lot of different objections.

My biggest complaints were roundabouts, poor drainage, dangerous driving and generally unpleasant road conditions much more suited to cars.

The sweating was a problem too.

These barriers can accumulate on longer commutes -- the longer the commute the greater the chance of encountering some obstacle, hazard or disincentive.

tomasrojo

I've never found sweating to be much of a problem for 10km commutes, I have to say, apart from very humid days, but I suppose I don't really cycle very fast.

By possible I suppose I mean that if there were suddenly no other way to make a 10km journey, most people would have no difficulty completing a 10km cycle. If they took it a leisurely pace, they wouldn't even be all that tired at the end of it, depending on the terrain.

Persuading people to voluntarily make such journeys is another matter, of course.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When I cycled c. 12km one way to work I got sweaty. No shower facilities at work, but since it was not my idea to relocate the workplace in order to substantially reduce the boss's commute by SUV from a palatial "one off" residence in the country, I decided it was not my problem!

However, many if not most other commuters may not relish the thought of profuse sweating on the way to work, and maybe their colleagues or clients won't either.

Sure above 10km people may "profusely sweat", but to a far lesser extent on trips between 6-9km. In the 6-9km bracket many journeys can be done without sweating or at least do so much, depending on speed, the person etc.

Also, for around 9km to 15km and even beyond, and more and more work places have showers.

Here's an example from this island of what you're up against in terms of 'selling' active commuting....

Yes, and you also have cyclists and people who are against private motoristed transport saying you can't promote cycling trips between 6-9km.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by "possible".

Sometimes small things matter a lot on a cycle commute, so you would have to think of ways to meet a lot of different objections.

My biggest complaints were roundabouts, poor drainage, dangerous driving and generally unpleasant road conditions much more suited to cars... These barriers can accumulate on longer commutes -- the longer the commute the greater the chance of encountering some obstacle, hazard or disincentive.

These problems have to be fixed at a local level anyway, there will be better results for even shorter commuters when you plan routes as part of long distance routes.

As as I've already posted about, off road greenways have a role to play to help -- with little interruption along a canal, coast or park. If the Grand Canal Greenway didn't have the kissing gates it's would be a motorway even for slow cyclists because they would have to stop far less than on the road, or even the 4km of the Phoenix Park can offer an extra advantage (and a far better one again if there was better priority at the few junctions in the park). Equally this can be done to an extent on routes along roads such as the N11 and N2 which are currently in a mess for cyclists. For this to work, cycling has to be looked at as workable for trips up to and even beyond 15km.

Iwannahurl

I've tried the "suddenly no other way" argument elsewhere on Boards in an attempt to make the point that many commuters actually do have a choice other than to sit in the cars every day for hours, sometimes to travel distances (as in Galway City) that could be walked or cycled in the same or even less time.

I was met with puzzlement.

I'm afraid at this stage in the evolution of Irish culture the concept of travelling even very short distances by bike or on foot has become completely alien.

In Galway some students are driving from student accommodation advertised as being just minutes away on foot.

Regardless of weather, neighbours of mine are driving their children daily to a primary school just 800 metres away (and parking on the footpaths and token cycle lanes in the process).

The list of excuses for such (to my mind) bizarre behaviour is a lengthy one. Now try talking to these people about cycling 10 km.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Yes, and you also have cyclists and people who are against private motoristed transport saying you can't promote cycling trips between 6-9km.

Eh? I'm talking about the difficulty of 'selling' the idea.

Can we prove the effectiveness of our approach first by achieving significant modal shift over distances <=5km before targeting the 6-9 km bracket?

Start by doubling the modal share within that radius, and then those early adopters will help recruit the others.

tomasrojo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm afraid at this stage in the evolution of Irish culture the concept of travelling even very short distances by bike or on foot has become completely alien.

I know what you mean. People seem to be quite surprised when I turn down the offer of a lift because I'd like the exercise of walking instead.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Eh? I'm talking about the difficulty of 'selling' the idea.

Yes, and it's harder to sell something when even cyclists are talking it down and under selling it.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Can we prove the effectiveness of our approach first by achieving significant modal shift over distances <=5km before targeting the 6-9 km bracket?

Start by doubling the modal share within that radius, and then those early adopters will help recruit the others.

Surely it's already proven these distances are cyclable? In the Netherlands 34% of all trips up to 7.5km (not just commutes) are by bicycle and 15% of all trips between 7.5-15km -- and this was when they were in 7km max mode. It's time to look at lessons others have learned already had and skip a step.

While sure you go after the low hanging fruit, but 5km is artificially low for cycling and planning any thing on the bases of 5km is what most will be doing and we'll never get much improvements in the cycle network.

Modal share from Fietsberaad's Cycling in the Netherlands:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I've tried the "suddenly no other way" argument elsewhere on Boards in an attempt to make the point that many commuters actually do have a choice other than to sit in the cars every day for hours, sometimes to travel distances (as in Galway City) that could be walked or cycled in the same or even less time.

I was met with puzzlement.

I'm afraid at this stage in the evolution of Irish culture the concept of travelling even very short distances by bike or on foot has become completely alien.

In Galway some students are driving from student accommodation advertised as being just minutes away on foot.

Regardless of weather, neighbours of mine are driving their children daily to a primary school just 800 metres away (and parking on the footpaths and token cycle lanes in the process).

The list of excuses for such (to my mind) bizarre behaviour is a lengthy one. Now try talking to these people about cycling 10 km.

You were saying on the other thread that public transport is better for distances like 9km -- for a lot of people it's not. Cycling is actually an easier sell -- from the perspective of cost, health, and often time, convenience and reliability -- as per my first post even where I was based in Dublin City Centre with bus and Luas nearly on my door step, taking public transport was more than twice slower because of the connection.

reallyunique

Don't pick a distance, pick a time. I'd go for about 45mins at the sort of speeds I like to keep up but longer if you go slower.
I'm a "sweaty Betty" but as long as I keep the speed down I can cycle pretty much any distance without sweating. Take your time, don't use a back-pack and sweating shouldn't be a problem for commutes of under an hour. I'm old and fat and totally unfit so fitness should be no barrier.

Tomorrow my two girls (7&9) and I will commute to town (7k ish) and are unlikely to encounter any hazards we can't cope with. There are definitely areas where we'll take care but the roads are perfectly safe and at commuting time bikes will be the fastest things on the road. We require no special road markings or anything else. That said, cycle lanes are nice.

In the UK I cycled about 12km (35 mins door to door) to and from work every day and it was fine. Wouldn't do it wearing a suit mind, but apart from that it never bothered me. Good cycle-tracks for the sub-urban bits of the ride and a convenient place to lock my bike helped. After a month or so I got membership at a local gym which cost less per month than a bus pass so I could shower before work. My bike cost £40 on e-bay and was basic but tons of fun.

The reality is that despite all the issues, real and imagined, you can commute by bike now. It's cheap, safe, addictive fun and good for you too, regardless of the distance involved. If we can't promote this then how the hell do we manage to sell cigarettes? Perhaps it's that we don't really want to promote it at all.

Lumen

Why must cycling be "sold" or "promoted"?

People respond best to peer pressure and role models.

We must look awesome, smell awesome and arrive at work in less time.

If that isn't persuasive, leave them in peace with their traffic jams and heart disease.

Seaswimmer

One of the issues for cycling in urban Ireland compared to the Amsterdam and Copenhagen type experience is population density. Our towns and cities are low rise and more spread out therefore distances to work/shops/school are generally higher. I am sure many of the school runs are part of a parents work commute. If people worked closer to their homes they may be more likely to cycle with their kids to school and go on to work from there.



I think as someone pointed out above getting people on bikes to do any kind of cycling should be our first target. Then we can concentrate on greater distances. I think as fuel gets gradually more expensive a lot of people may investigate cycling for themselves anyway..

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Yes, and it's harder to sell something when even cyclists are talking it down and under selling it.

I was never good at selling!

Seriously though, I'm not trying to talk it down. Just being realistic, IMO. In a country where something in the order of 40,000 children are driven 1km or less to school (IIRC), where many cycle "facilities" are designed to make motoring easier, where TDs on bikes were dismissed as sandal-wearing eco-fascists, and where helmet hysteria is commonplace, the cycling promotion team barely has its shoe in the door.

If you're opening pitch is "fancy cycling 100km to work and back every week" you may get more than just a blank look.

That Dutch cycling promotion example you quoted earlier says that "distances of up to 15 km are achievable" on new cycling highways. Are Dutch cycling conditions really only (up to) 50% better than ours?

I liked this bit in the Dutch doc: "In accordance with the Environmental Management Act, businesses are obliged to minimise emissions caused by transport to and from the company."

That's a good example of a universal enabling and promoting measure. Do we have anything like that here?

With regard to public transport, I take your point that the bike can be quicker in certain circumstances. That's partly because buses get stuck in traffic, no? In the Irish context PT will probably play a more important role than cycling in modal switch. I also think we should be looking much harder and more creatively at inter-modal commuting.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Surely it's already proven these distances are cyclable? In the Netherlands 34% of all trips up to 7.5km (not just commutes) are by bicycle and 15% of all trips between 7.5-15km -- and this was when they were in 7km max mode. It's time to look at lessons others have learned already had and skip a step.

While sure you go after the low hanging fruit, but 5km is artificially low for cycling and planning any thing on the bases of 5km is what most will be doing and we'll never get much improvements in the cycle network.

Modal share from Fietsberaad's Cycling in the Netherlands:

You were saying on the other thread that public transport is better for distances like 9km -- for a lot of people it's not. Cycling is actually an easier sell -- from the perspective of cost, health, and often time, convenience and reliability -- as per my first post even where I was based in Dublin City Centre with bus and Luas nearly on my door step, taking public transport was more than twice slower because of the connection.

Great graphs. I'll certainly refer to them again.

I'm not challenging the fact that up to 7.5 km is achievable (to use the Dutch example).

What matters is not that these distances are cyclable but that people will cycle them.

I'm not so sure about the bit in bold. Are you saying that trying to achieve significant modal shift over very achievable distances is actually counter-productive in the long term?

Iwannahurl

reallyunique wrote: »

Don't pick a distance, pick a time. I'd go for about 45mins at the sort of speeds I like to keep up but longer if you go slower.

[...]

The reality is that despite all the issues, real and imagined, you can commute by bike now. It's cheap, safe, addictive fun and good for you too, regardless of the distance involved. If we can't promote this then how the hell do we manage to sell cigarettes? Perhaps it's that we don't really want to promote it at all.

1. Good point. One of the key benefits of cycling is predictable and consistent commuting times even in congested conditions.

2. Massive marketing budgets and a highly addictive substance called nicotine. Look at the massive effort it has taken to reduce the prevalence of smoking.

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

Why must cycling be "sold" or "promoted"?

People respond best to peer pressure and role models.

We must look awesome, smell awesome and arrive at work in less time.

If that isn't persuasive, leave them in peace with their traffic jams and heart disease.

Social marketing is essential to make progress with any new public policy of this kind which challenges the status quo.

Peer pressure and role models are car-based currently.

People also respond to "everyone else is doing it". On the plus side, it does seem as if we are on the cusp of a cycling renaissance, if the success of the Dublin bike scheme is anything to go by. Anything that gets people whizzing around on bikes and looking normal is a good thing.

And I did smell "awesome"! :eek:

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Social marketing is essential to make progress with any new public policy of this kind which challenges the status quo.

Peer pressure and role models are car-based currently.

People also respond to "everyone else is doing it". On the plus side, it does seem as if we are on the cusp of a cycling renaissance, if the success of the Dublin bike scheme is anything to go by. Anything that gets people whizzing around on bikes and looking normal is a good thing.

And I did smell "awesome"! :eek:

I assume by "public policy which challenges the status quo" you mean "government telling people to do stuff they hate". Good luck with that.

Cycling advocacy to me is too closely associated with hi vis/helmet dorkyness and that middle aged bloke in the office with poor hygiene. Sky Ride Dublin was a classic example.

If there's going to be a message, it should be (a) cycling is a convenient, safe, fun mode of transport, and can be done on the same roads people use in their cars without getting squished, sweaty or looking like a dork, and (b) cycling is an accessible, exciting sport with a very well developed grass roots infrastructure in Ireland.

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

Cycling advocacy to me is too closely associated with
...(a) cycling is a convenient, safe, fun mode of transport, and can be done on the same roads people use in their cars without getting squished, sweaty or looking like a dork

Which is why you cycle to work on a frame worth much lolly with wheels worth much more, wearing club gear and taking victory salutes at traffic lights?

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

I assume by "public policy which challenges the status quo" you mean "government telling people to do stuff they hate". Good luck with that.

Cycling advocacy to me is too closely associated with hi vis/helmet dorkyness and that middle aged bloke in the office with poor hygiene. Sky Ride Dublin was a classic example.

If there's going to be a message, it should be (a) cycling is a convenient, safe, fun mode of transport, and can be done on the same roads people use in their cars without getting squished, sweaty or looking like a dork, and (b) cycling is an accessible, exciting sport with a very well developed grass roots infrastructure in Ireland.

The last part first. Cycling as a sport is pretty much irrelevant in this context, as rally driving or F1 is to the daily commute.

"If there is going to be a message" -- is there or isn't there a "message" currently?

What do you mean by "government telling people to do stuff they hate"?

monument

Lumen wrote: »

Why must cycling be "sold" or "promoted"?

People respond best to peer pressure and role models.

We must look awesome, smell awesome and arrive at work in less time.

If that isn't persuasive, leave them in peace with their traffic jams and heart disease.

The benefits to the state, the economy and individualises is too great not to promote cycling.

When I say "promoting" cycling, I mean what can be done in a very wide sense to promote cycling as a mode of transport -- a wide range of mesures including: making road conditions better, proving parking outside the doors of shops, expanding DublinBikes, work with companies and schools Smarter Travel programme already is, and, last but by no means least, market cycling right (as you said, as convenient, safe, fun mode of transport) and don't allow any state body promoted helmets and high-vis. As the national cycle policy says:

"In promoting cycling, we need to have cycling-friendly urban planning and cycling-friendly road design / traffic management measures and integration with public transport and plentiful cycling parking and the other measures described in this document. It is a very broad package of measures that is required, not just single, specific interventions."

Peer pressure and role models could even be seen as promoting cycling -- not all promotion is contained and planned. Indeed, cyclists them self can do hard to its image by talking up the odd negatives but never mentioning the daily benefits.

Seaswimmer wrote: »

One of the issues for cycling in urban Ireland compared to the Amsterdam and Copenhagen type experience is population density...

From Wikipedia:

Copenhagen
- City 541,989
- Density 6,141.5/km2 (15,906.5/sq mi)

Dublin
- City 525,383
- Density 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)

Amsterdam
- Municipality/city 780,152
- Density 3,506/km2 (9,080.5/sq mi)

Seaswimmer wrote: »

...Our towns and cities are low rise and more spread out therefore distances to work/shops/school are generally higher. I am sure many of the school runs are part of a parents work commute. If people worked closer to their homes they may be more likely to cycle with their kids to school and go on to work from there.

When the people who did not state their distances are excluded from the census 2006 data:

57.96% of all commutes in Ireland are between 1km and 9km, and the same distance makes up:

76.97% in Dublin City

81% in Cork City

85.62% in Galway City

etc

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I was never good at selling!

Seriously though, I'm not trying to talk it down. Just being realistic, IMO. In a country where something in the order of 40,000 children are driven 1km or less to school (IIRC), where many cycle "facilities" are designed to make motoring easier, where TDs on bikes were dismissed as sandal-wearing eco-fascists, and where helmet hysteria is commonplace, the cycling promotion team barely has its shoe in the door.

If you're opening pitch is "fancy cycling 100km to work and back every week" you may get more than just a blank look.

But that's not the opening pitch.

It's that cycling is a convenient, reliable, predictable, enjoyable, cost effective, and healthy mode of transport.

Nobody is suggesting 100km. I was suggesting a focus on 1-9km while not ruling out 10-15km for younger, fitter people. Towards the higher end of my suggestion 8km only takes 32mins, as fast as the car if it involves city and town centres or other heavily trafficked areas and public transport just can't compete with cycling for a huge amount of trips

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That Dutch cycling promotion example you quoted earlier says that "distances of up to 15 km are achievable" on new cycling highways. Are Dutch cycling conditions really only (up to) 50% better than ours?

Nationally, they got cycling to 34% of all journeys up to 7.5km and, before the roll out of cycling highways they have gotten to 15% of all journeys by bike between 7.5km and 15km.

Very important to note: That's all journeys compared to our stats which are just commuting journeys.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That's a good example of a universal enabling and promoting measure. Do we have anything like that here?

No, but we have some very good targeting of work places vie the Smarter Travel.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

With regard to public transport, I take your point that the bike can be quicker in certain circumstances. That's partly because buses get stuck in traffic, no? In the Irish context PT will probably play a more important role than cycling in modal switch. I also think we should be looking much harder and more creatively at inter-modal commuting.

Why will public transport play a more important role?

And more so, how can it given buses are slow for most non-direct trips? It's not just because buses get stuck in traffic, but also for reasons like transfers take too much time, cost, walking time to/from stops, waiting time at stops, the need to go off route, limited hours for PT, etc.

And why should the state want to promote PT over cycling, given the latter is far better for direct cost savings and has far greater economic, health, social, and environmental benefits?

I can see cycling helping public transport, mainly the range of light rail, rail and BRT, but the bike is a better rival to car trips for far more trips than PT can be.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not so sure about the bit in bold. Are you saying that trying to achieve significant modal shift over very achievable distances is actually counter-productive in the long term?

You'll get the greater shift in the lower range, but you should be aiming far higher than just the lower range. You have not explained by the range between 5km and 9km is so unachievable, as before, at 9km/h:

5km = 20mins
7km = 27mins
8km = 32mins

Lumen

Ah right, when I hear "promotion" I think "marketing".

Covering the city in Sheffield stands, sorting out the most hostile bits of road infrastructure and declaring bike thieves to be outlaws is the sort of "promotion" that appeals to me.

HivemindXX

My current commute is 10.6k and I get quite a bit of interest from my co-workers about cycling. Most people using public transport in my work have to change (bus=>bus, train=>bus) at some point and that adds a lot of time. Incidentally I'm pretty sure the 100k figure mentioned earlier is the weekly total for a 10k commute. It's gets mentioned to me a lot. For example, "I can't believe you can cycle 100k every week!". I try not to take that as a comment on my weight or age.

I somewhat obsessively check my times for this on the computer and I can compare my running time and my total travel. I spend about 10% of my time stopped at lights and clearly I spend quite a bit of time slowing down and speeding up at lights which still counts as running time. If there was some sort of bike motorway I'd be quite a bit faster.

There still aren't a lot of people jumping to cycle though. 10k seems like a lot to them. I think they'd be much more likely to take it up over the 5k distance, but of course they're much less likely to feel the need to over that distance since a combination of bus and walking is likely to do that job.

I do think there's a lot more interest in cycling from people in general. There's plenty of scope for the government or whoever to 'promote' cycling however there's also a great amount of promotion we can do as individuals as well. Just telling people it's no big deal to cycle, you're not taking your life in your hands, you don't need to be Lance Armstrong and you won't dissolve like the Wicked Witch if you get a little sweaty.

I've heard of schemes before where employers pay a bounty for you not to use a parking space. From my point of view that would be great. Unfortunately the fact I don't take up an expensive bit of concrete in the basement is my free gift to them. I guess the showers and decent bike parking make us quits.

galwaycyclist

A lad in TCD did a paper/thesis on the distances from Dublin city centre over which cycling matched travel times for car users. I don't know if I have it handy but I will look for it.

If you want more people to cycle any distances then the most important thing to do is sell the idea of cycling being a normal, convenient and fun form of transport. No special clothes required first and no absolute requirement for special infrastructure.

The analagy with getting more people to smoke is quite apt. Smoking is horrible they taste crap, they make you feel nauseous, they make you smell. Getting people to stick with if it until they become addicted is a major marketing achievement.

Most official "marketing" in relation to cycling involves telling people they have to wear special clothes and that there has to be special infrastructure.

ROK ON

One issue is perception versus reLity.

Prior to cycling to work daily while I worked in Dublin, I bad a perception that it would take too long, I would be too unfit and it wod be hassle. Christ on a bike but I was sloop wrong.

Once you get used to commuting by bike, I found that ones distance perception was changed dramatically. I would be surprised if one could travel if a person could travel from home to work from anywhere in outer suburbs to city centre where any other form of available transport beat the bike.

I used to choose where to live by reference to distance to work. I no longer live in Dublin, but if I was ever to move back then there are so many areas that I would now consider simply because I cycle. I could never say that before I cycled.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

A lad in TCD did a paper/thesis on the distances from Dublin city centre over which cycling matched travel times for car users. I don't know if I have it handy but I will look for it.
.

OK I found it, or maybe a draft of it, after booting up an old pc. Its from 2003 by Leo Mulhern, a Trinity student. He found that for cycling vs motoring the distance of "equal journey time" was anything up to 13km from the city centre.

I have an awful feeling that Leo got sick and passed away before graduating but I cant remember the details. I dont want to attach it here yet anyway. PM me if anyone wants to read it and I'll e mail it on.

Oldlegs

monument wrote: »

....

From Wikipedia:

Copenhagen
- City 541,989
- Density 6,141.5/km2 (15,906.5/sq mi)

Dublin
- City 525,383
- Density 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)

Amsterdam
- Municipality/city 780,152
- Density 3,506/km2 (9,080.5/sq mi)
.........
57.96% of all commutes in Ireland are between 1km and 9km, and the same distance makes up:

76.97% in Dublin City
81% in Cork City
85.62% in Galway City

@Monument, this is a great analysis which debunks many of the reasons given for why Irish cycling can never be the same as other EU countries.

But I would also suggest that the Irish climate is actually MORE favourable to cycling than the Dutch or Danish climates, as we do NOT have summers which are too hot for cycling to work.

http://web2.airmail.net/danb1/european.htm

Average Number of days/year with Precipitation
1. Copenhagen, Denmark 251
3. London, UK 226
5. Amsterdam, Netherlands 214
10. Dublin, Ireland 139 (Although Dublin ranks 7th in actual rainfall!)

10 most humid cities - Avg relative humidity in %
1. Amsterdam, Netherlands 82.5
2. Helsinki, Finland 80.5
3. Dublin, Ireland 79.5
4. Brussels, Belgium 78.0
5. Copenhagen, Denmark 77.5
6. London, UK 77.0


So basically, it does NOT rain more often (in Dublin anyway) despite what my 40+ years of anecdotal experience tells me

G rock

ROK ON wrote: »

One issue is perception versus reLity.

Prior to cycling to work daily while I worked in Dublin, I bad a perception that it would take too long, I would be too unfit and it wod be hassle. Christ on a bike but I was sloop wrong.

Once you get used to commuting by bike, I found that ones distance perception was changed dramatically. I would be surprised if one could travel if a person could travel from home to work from anywhere in outer suburbs to city centre where any other form of available transport beat the bike.

I used to choose where to live by reference to distance to work. I no longer live in Dublin, but if I was ever to move back then there are so many areas that I would now consider simply because I cycle. I could never say that before I cycled.

couldn't agree more.

only since starting to cycle have i realised how small a city dublin really is.

this is something i try to impress on anyone who seems surprised when they hear i commute by bike.

it has to be because even travelling short distances here takes a lot of time and effort by car

Iwannahurl

That is true about cycling making certain distances appealing. However, I would contend that you have to encourage potential cyclists to discover this for themselves.

My father-in-law (70+) rediscovered this for himself only yesterday. Already a great walker, and the only one in his neighbourhood who walks the 1.3 km to the local parish church on Sunday, he was ecstatic about the freedom, speed and convenience of cycling to mass in Galway (though nervous of Galway drivers and hence used the footpath in some places).

I think the suggestion of focusing on time rather than distance is a good one, therefore. Non-cyclists already know what 15-30 minutes means, but I suspect that they would have a distorted perspective on distance.

I would not, however, deny that cycling can take more effort (in terms of hassle rather than fitness-increasing exercise) than using the car, especially when kids are involved!

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That is true about cycling making certain distances appealing. However, I would contend that you have to encourage potential cyclists to discover this for themselves.

My father-in-law (70+) rediscovered this for himself only yesterday. Already a great walker, and the only one in his neighbourhood who walks the 1.3 km to the local parish church on Sunday, he was ecstatic about the freedom, speed and convenience of cycling to mass in Galway (though nervous of Galway drivers and hence used the footpath in some places).

I think the suggestion of focusing on time rather than distance is a good one, therefore. Non-cyclists already know what 15-30 minutes means, but I suspect that they would have a distorted perspective on distance.

Thing is, walking for an hour to cover 6km is bloody tedious. Cycling for an hour to cover 20km (or whatever) is fun and interesting. The brain craves stimulation, and whizzing along on a bike is stimulating.

So it's not just a case of time.

tomasrojo

People used to driving are very bad at judging distances around and within cities, I find. Inside the city, they overestimate distances; on the outskirts, they underestimate.

For example, when I lived in Terenure and commuted by bike to Citywest, people thought I was crazy. When I moved to Lucan, they thought it was a much shorter cycle. I think it was the same distance; it certainly was very similar.

droidus

People apparently overestimate journey time by public transport and cycling and underestimate it for driving.

There was a study of some kind done once by someone, somewhere...

DePurpereWolf

Lumen wrote: »

Thing is, walking for an hour to cover 6km is bloody tedious. Cycling for an hour to cover 20km (or whatever) is fun and interesting. The brain craves stimulation, and whizzing along on a bike is stimulating.

So it's not just a case of time.

Depends on how you cycle, at 20 km/h you're cycling also for exercise, you're building up a sweat (at least I do) and you are feeling the joy of exercising.

So you should compare it to a 9km run/jog to work, which can be invigorating as well. Or a boring hour cycle covering 15 km.

There is one problem with running to work, and that is that it would be really annoying running with a rucksack, cycling not as much.

Iwannahurl

droidus wrote: »

People apparently overestimate journey time by public transport and cycling and underestimate it for driving.

There was a study of some kind done once by someone, somewhere...

Interesting.

Here's where we need to refer to the Psychology of Commuting. If such a speciality doesn't exist, it should be soon.

Motorists also underestimate, or ignore, their driving speed (between traffic jams) which is not good for vulnerable road users.

Cognition is distorted, or at least modified, inside a car. Tom Vanderbilt's book, Traffic, which I'm reading these days, is full of examples of how drivers' perception can be unreliable.

When it comes to understanding what cycle commuting is really about, perhaps there is no substitute for actual experience. Could 1 kilometre or even just a few hundred metres of actual cycling be enough to change mindsets, even though it's far far shorter than a 'theoretically' achievable 10 km?

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Thing is, walking for an hour to cover 6km is bloody tedious. Cycling for an hour to cover 20km (or whatever) is fun and interesting. The brain craves stimulation, and whizzing along on a bike is stimulating.

So it's not just a case of time.

When I walk more for more than 15 minutes I contemplate buying a car again.

seamus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

When it comes to understanding what cycle commuting is really about, perhaps there is no substitute for actual experience. Could 1 kilometre or even just a few hundred metres of actual cycling be enough to change mindsets, even though it's far far shorter than a 'theoretically' achievable 10 km?

The thing about cycling, you need to remember, is that there will always be "prep time" - time to gather the things you need to cycle specifically, be that leg clips or whatever, then go out and unlock the bike, wheel it out, etc etc.

Cars by and large will be ready to go, so you just walk out of the house, into the car and you're gone. If you're talking about a short distance of 1km down to the local shops or whatever, then by the time you've gotten your stuff and unlocked your bike, a car driver will be nearly there.
Bikes don't specifically take longer, but people have accustomed themselves to having their cars ready-to-go, so initially taking the bike will be the option which is more hassle. It's only when someone gets used to cycling that they will be able to get in-and-out in a matter of seconds.

A guy who works with me used to cycle to work, across the city from Rathmines. When we moved office to Harcourt st, he started walking because he reckoned that by the time he took the lift down to the carpark and got his bike, he'd have nearly walked to work. That distance is probably close to 1km.

So if there was to be an aim, it's to get those journeys which are seen as beyond a walk, but not huge. 3 - 5km would be what I'm thinking. And you need to target commuting and leisure trips. The utility cyclists among us have shown that you can do the weeks' shopping without a car, but only if you're adequately prepared.

Preparation comes after the exposure, so we want to be targetting those journeys that can be enjoyably undertaken by someone wearing their normal clothes and just using the €200 BSO that's in their shed. If you put obstacles in the way such as buying the correct bike or wearing specific clothing, then you will lose people.

Two obvious things which come to mind to encourage this;

- Give event organisers subsidies for promoting walking and cycling to their events. So ensure that they provide ample bike parking (with security on duty and CCTV), and all cyclists get in free (or a reduced ticket) and in return the event organiser gets some form of rebate, if they also promote the "Cyclists go free" part. Those traffic snarl-ups that occur around any place during any event (think RDS) - 90% of those people could be cycling in.

- Home delivery services in big shopping centres. So you cycle to Dundrum, grab a bite to eat, do a big pile of shopping, then bring it to a place who pack it all up and deliver to your home for free (after you provide proof that you cycled) on the same day. One less car clogging up the roads on the shopping centre, and there is no additional hassle in it for the shopper.

The key really is to show people that everyday cycling to get around is no big deal. The Dublin bikes scheme has shown a lot of people this, but it's still something that I know lots of people consider to be a city-centre only thing, "Because everything is close together". Many don't seem to realise that their local shopping centre is closer to them than cycling from O'Connell Street to Ranelagh on a DB.

Iwannahurl

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

When I walk more for more than 15 minutes I contemplate buying a car again.

This is going OT, but what could possibly be more stimulating in a car (steady!) than walking or cycing?

The smell of leather perhaps (phwoah) but otherwise you're almost completely cut off from the outside environment.

I recently got my ears syringed to fix a severe hearing problem, and the subsequent aural experience on the bike and on foot was like tripping. In the car it was just noisy.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

That is true about cycling making certain distances appealing. However, I would contend that you have to encourage potential cyclists to discover this for themselves.

As pointed out since you posted, this is problematic because people within the 1-10km range overestimate how long it will take them to cycle distances.

Hammering home the message that cycling is quick and easy even at slower speeds is important.

A story told so often on this board is motorists pointlessly wanting to overtake you when you'll pass them out before the next light or at least catch up with them by then, motorists overestimate their average speed and underestimate cyclists' speed -- sure there's no way they could be faster.

Bus users too will often not take into account of the full travel time -- walking time to / from stops, waiting at stops (even if they complain about it a lot), and the journey time on the bus.

seamus wrote: »

The thing about cycling, you need to remember, is that there will always be "prep time" - time to gather the things you need to cycle specifically, be that leg clips or whatever, then go out and unlock the bike, wheel it out, etc etc.

What are these strange things you need for cycling? ...Really, I kept the things I needed in my usual bag. Un/locking a bike takes a few second, and at very max a min. It helps when you don't put on fancy dress and you don't have other stuff to mess with or carry like a helmet.

droidus

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Interesting.

Here's where we need to refer to the Psychology of Commuting. If such a speciality doesn't exist, it should be soon.

Motorists also underestimate, or ignore, their driving speed (between traffic jams) which is not good for vulnerable road users.

Cognition is distorted, or at least modified, inside a car. Tom Vanderbilt's book, Traffic, which I'm reading these days, is full of examples of how drivers' perception can be unreliable.

When it comes to understanding what cycle commuting is really about, perhaps there is no substitute for actual experience. Could 1 kilometre or even just a few hundred metres of actual cycling be enough to change mindsets, even though it's far far shorter than a 'theoretically' achievable 10 km?

Some stuff here related to public transport:

At first glance, it appears that car drivers add about an hour to their car travel time when asked to estimate public transport travel time for the same trip, independent of trip distance

https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/viewFile/15/81

seamus

monument wrote: »

What are these strange things you need for cycling? ...Really, I kept the things I needed in my usual bag. Un/locking a bike takes a few second, and at very max a min. It helps when you don't put on fancy dress and you don't have other stuff to mess with or carry like a helmet.

But you're prepared
In just the same way that someone will keep their car key near the front door or in their pocket so they only need to walk out, lock the front door and jump in the car.

If cycling is not something that someone routinely does, then it's going to take them five minutes to find the shed key, go out to the shed, struggle with the shed door, get their bike out, lock the shed door, out the side gate, back into the house to lock up, etc etc. Maybe even the more paranoid might think they need to pack a backpack to stop their wallet from dropping out of their pocket.

Once you get used to doing it, it takes no time at all. But it's the perceived hassle that makes it fall on its arse.

HivemindXX

seamus wrote: »

But it's the perceived hassle that makes it fall on its arse.

Ok, but it is only perceived hassle. If the argument is that you have to find the keys for the shed, move the lawnmower, pull out the bike and lift it over the wheelie bins before you can even start cycling but the car is ready to go straight away I think there's a false equivalence. The person saying this is just looking for an excuse to use the car instead of the bike.

The car is ready to go straight away because the driver uses it all the time. My bike is ready to go all the time, it's not in the shed it's in the hall next to the door. I don't need any clips or special equipment to use it and if I did they would be hanging next to the door like the car keys. Where I live is very tight for parking, getting in and out in a car is quite tricky. I can pretty much guarantee I can beat anyone from the sofa to the main road in a race.

Incidentally I've seen plenty of husbands come back in after leaving to ask the wife to move their car so they can get their out. I've also seen people sitting in the car for 10 minutes waiting for the windows to defrost or going back inside to get a kettle of water to pour on it (which sucks for a whole different reason). It's not always instant gratification to get where you want to go in a car.

seamus

HivemindXX wrote: »

The person saying this is just looking for an excuse to use the car instead of the bike.

Agreed. And isn't that exactly what we're trying to overcome?

I agree that these aren't real, actual hassles, but in order to overcome the false perceptions you need to avoid having people justify them. IMO, a short cycle, like 1km, will be more hassle than driving, to an habitual car user.
It would be a bit like promoting a "cycle to work" day in late November, when it's cold, dark and pissing rain, so the naysayers can just say, "Ah, see? I told you, it's too wet and cold to cycle in Ireland."

tomasrojo

Even as a habitual cyclist, I would certainly prefer to walk 1km than cycle it. It's short enough not to be a hassle, and I like walking. Plus locking up is just enough of a hassle to tip the balance in favour of walking, even if it's not a nice walk.

Lumen

HivemindXX wrote: »

I can pretty much guarantee I can beat anyone from the sofa to the main road in a race.

I beat my wife the other night....from Parnell St to Clonsilla (14km). I was on my tank bike, she was in the car. Neither of us violated the ROTR, and the route was mostly uphill in light traffic.

Fistpump!

...although I was rather dishevelled on arrival.

Seaswimmer

Lumen wrote: »

I beat my wife the other night....

Are you still beating her??

Maybe post in Personal Issues...

Iwannahurl

HivemindXX wrote: »

Ok, but it is only perceived hassle. If the argument is that you have to find the keys for the shed, move the lawnmower, pull out the bike and lift it over the wheelie bins before you can even start cycling but the car is ready to go straight away I think there's a false equivalence. The person saying this is just looking for an excuse to use the car instead of the bike.

The car is ready to go straight away because the driver uses it all the time. My bike is ready to go all the time, it's not in the shed it's in the hall next to the door. I don't need any clips or special equipment to use it and if I did they would be hanging next to the door like the car keys. Where I live is very tight for parking, getting in and out in a car is quite tricky. I can pretty much guarantee I can beat anyone from the sofa to the main road in a race.

Incidentally I've seen plenty of husbands come back in after leaving to ask the wife to move their car so they can get their out. I've also seen people sitting in the car for 10 minutes waiting for the windows to defrost or going back inside to get a kettle of water to pour on it (which sucks for a whole different reason). It's not always instant gratification to get where you want to go in a car.

You've seen my shed then? And by the way, don't knock bicycle clips -- they may be dorky, but they're useful!

If it was just me, it wouldn't be such a palaver. Add two kids to the mix, with their gear and propensity for fighting like a bag of weasels in the trailer, and it definitely is more hassle than buckling them into their separate car seats while I get their stuff ready.

I would never claim that it's not more effort to cycle at times, nor would I claim that I'm never lazy.

So much of this is about habit, familiar routines and the line of least resistance at any given point in time. That's why cycling needs to be made the easier and best option, on balance, for most trips that count. Some of that is down to the individual, but society and the state needs to be a lot more enabling, IMO.

p

I've lived in Copenhagen and now Munich, both big cycling cities, and from that experience, I would follow this simple rule.

What timeframe would you consider a normal walking distance to work/shops/pub?

I think there's a magic time of up to 20mins for the vast majority of people. After that, people will drop off pretty quickly.

Sometimes when you hear discussions about cycling it's implies people are going to commute from Tallaght to the City Centre. While i'm sure some people do, I don't think that should be our primary target audience. Short trips, under 5k (less than 20 mins) should be the main focus, to work, school, shops and recreation.

The same interconnected infrastructure will easily allow those who want to cycle further to do so with ease.

monument wrote: »

From Wikipedia:
Copenhagen
- City 541,989
- Density 6,141.5/km2 (15,906.5/sq mi)
Dublin
- City 525,383
- Density 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)
Amsterdam
- Municipality/city 780,152
- Density 3,506/km2 (9,080.5/sq mi)

Just a small note. This is not a great source of info for comparing city denisty, as municipality size, area, and structure are quite different. Many more details are required.
Spend 10 mins in Copenhagen and you'll see the city centre is more densely populated than in Dublin. Thankfully our (slightly improved) planning laws are encouraging slightly higher density around transport hubs.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

If it was just me, it wouldn't be such a palaver. Add two kids to the mix, with their gear and propensity for fighting like a bag of weasels in the trailer, and it definitely is more hassle than buckling them into their separate car seats while I get their stuff ready.

p wrote: »

I've lived in Copenhagen and now Munich, both big cycling cities, and from that experience, I would follow this simple rule.

How long timeframe would you consider walking distances?

I think there's a magic time of up to 20mins for the vast majority of people. After that, people will drop off pretty quickly.

Sometimes when you hear discussions about cycling it's implies people are going to commute from Tallaght to the City Centre. While i'm sure some people would, I don't think that should be our primary plan. Short, under 5k trips should be the main focus, to work, school, shops and recreation.

Interconnected infrastructure will easily allow those who want to cycle further to do so with ease.

In Copenhagen the green wave for cyclists is 20km.

20km/h for 20mins is 6.7km.

As before, the most potential is in the lower range, but I'd be very wary of not also promoting the mid range of 5km+. In the 2006 census, around 40% of cyclists trips were between 1-4km, but 5-9km accounted for 30% -- I don't think we should be restrict the distance many will cycling to such small distances as under 5km, it will do harm.

As I said before, the Netherlands got cycling to 15% of all trips between 7.5k, and 15km when they were not even trying much -- and that was all trips, as opposed to our measurements which only count commuting trips. Think you need cycle motorway-like infrastructure for such distances? --Fine:

• Remove the kissing gates on the Grand Canal Green Way
• Upgrade the Royal Canal a bit
• Finish the northern section of the S2S route
• Start on longer sections on the southern section
• Upgrade routes along major roads -- N11, N1 and the Swords Road or a new route alone the motorway, and the N2/Finglas Road

See what happens. All of these would serve local, medium, and long distance trips -- not one or the other. But plan just for 5km and you're asking for trouble.

p wrote: »

Just a small note. This is not a great source of info for comparing city denisty, as municipality size, area, and structure are quite different. Many more details required.

Sure, I'll take Amsterdam back, the figure for Amsterdam is likely for a wider area. But Copenhagen and Dublin are for the city areas -- mainly what you need is density and population.

p wrote: »

Spend 10 mins in Copenhagen and you'll see the city centre is more densely populated than in Ireland. Thankfully our (slightly improved) planning laws are encouraging slightly higher density around transport hubs.

Amsterdam is a bit unfair given it's a large population over lower density, but with the city council areas of both Copenhagen and Dublin are for the city council areas and both population and density are around the same or not a million miles away -- it means you have around the same population in around the same area.

The differences are shown in the figures I posted and I have spent more than 10min all around Copenhagen.

Also, as per here (PDF):

Victoriagade Copenhagen - 170 dwellings per ha
Georgian Dublin - 165 dwellings per ha

Look at Copenhagen on Google Maps too and compare it to Dublin -- outside the central area in Copenhagen there are bigger gardens and bigger houses, while Dublin has some fairly compact houses -- and sure, some not so compact like Rathmines.

A lot of higher than normal density clustering happened in and around the M50 in recent years, lots of it in places most people will never see or notice. And There's a good deal room for more of it with in the M50 and around it.

Dublin could be a lot better density wise, but it's not as bad as a lot of people think. The main problems with Dublin is the out lying areas in the county and outside of the county where commuter land is really spread out.

Edit: Also, here's the areas of both city council areas along with what was already posted:

Dublin
Area 114.99 km2 (44.4 sq mi)
Population 525,383
Density 4,398/km2 (11,390.8/sq mi)

Copenhagen
Area 88.25 km² (34 sq mi)
Population 539,542 (2011)
Density 6,114 / km² (15,835 / sq mi)

Edit again: Frederiksberg isn't included in that so, there may me an argument about being a bit more off, but still...

monument

Ok... That was a bit of a rant...

Regardless of density, the very to mid cyclable distance range of 1-9km amounts to nearly 80% of commutes in the Dublin City Council area, and above that in Cork and Galway.

Get a decent percentages of those trips into cycling trips and that's some amount of journeys.