Cycling not increasing in the UK

[telstarbox]

The DfT have released the 2023 National Travel Survey which includes cycling:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2023/nts-2023-active-travel

Cycling trips made up 2% of trips and 1% of distance travelled, on average in 2023.

Cycling trip rates remained broadly similar between 2002 and 2023, with a slight increase shown in 2020. In 2023, there were 15 cycling trips per person, similar to the previous year (15 trips per person). There were 16 cycling trips per person in 2019. The relatively small number of cycling trips in the sample means that this series can be volatile, but it has remained between 14 and 20 trips per person per year since 2002.

There was a general upward trend in the average cycling miles travelled from 2002 to 2019 followed by a sharp increase in 2020, and has since fallen in 2023 to levels last seen in 2013. In 2023 there were 47 cycling miles per person travelled which was a decrease of 17% compared to the previous year (57 miles per person) and 13% lower than in 2019 (54 miles per person). This decrease in average miles cycled could be attributed to several factors, such as shorter trip lengths and changes in the nature of cycling activities, with more education and leisure cycling trips. Overall, average miles cycled in 2023 was 22% higher than in 2002 (39 miles per person).

Some disorganised thoughts on this:

The sample is based on 14,000 people completing diaries over a week, so it should pick up a broad range of 'types of cycling', compared to the Census ('how do you travel to work') or Strava which is biased towards keener / faster cyclists.

An average of 15 cycling trips per person is very low. Assuming that most commuters will do at least 4 one-way trips per week = 200 per year, this means that most people are cycling once per month or not at all.

The introduction page states that the most common trip purpose across all modes was shopping. This could reflect ongoing working from home (which could remove some previous cycling activity?) and most people probably don't think of going shopping by bike.

Round my way, poor quality road surfaces and bad driving continue to make ia grim experience sometimes - so I'm not surprised that people aren't increasing their cycling. The 'pothole blitz' while aimed at drivers will help cyclists too.

I would expect any growth in cycling to come in London / Manchester where the authorities are putting forward more designated routes. Active Travel England now require local authorities and developers to make more effort, but this will take some time to filter through to schemes on the ground

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

I'm not surprised. Having been a York cyclist since the 90's I have seen numerous cycling facilities provided in a haphazard and piecemeal way. The general motivation seems to be to get cyclists out of the way of the motorist without paying regard to the convenience of the cyclist. 

On the shopping bike to Clifton Moor using as many cycle tracks as possible.  That means the number of obstacles to overcome is so huge and varied, it could become an Olympic event:

Pedestrians and joggers many with x number of dogs (requires a bell, preferably large and loud, I have one and know how to use it)
Anti-vehicle barriers everywhere
Crossing the race track twice via the sand traps
Crossing the river on the new pedestrian bridge (carry bike up stairs, like in the old days or use the new ramp)
Very narrow track along steep bank down to the river usually with other cyclists and dog-walkers - who is going to give way?
Cattle grids, new ones - quite smooth, old ones - teeth rattlers
Pelican crossings
Navigating the insane shared-use cycle tracks of Clifton Moor Retail estate added as an afterthought since the estate is intended only for motorists.  Cyclists and pedestrians are tolerated, barely.
Finding the snickets through a housing estate, a maze of identical houses, with inadequate signage
Crossing minor roads when it is necessary to stop, check if a vehicle is going to turn left behind you and of course give way to any vehicles coming out of the minor road.  (yes perhaps I ought to have a rear-view mirror!) 

On the way back I thought sod it and used the roads - much easier and I didn't die.

So 22.23km in 1hr 17m, 52m climbed 17.3 km/hr.

I've had few accidents in many decades cycling but my worst was caused by the provision of a cycle lane, across which someone opened a door in my path. Had there been no cycle lane I am sure the driver would have drawn up against the kerb and I would have passed safely on the outside.  York city motorists are more considerate towards cyclists than most, I would suggest.

[yoav]

It’s quite possible that we have reached a ceiling for what we can do to persuade more people to cycle with current levels of cycling infrastructure. What’s needed now are massive investments in cycling infrastructure to persuade the next tranche of reluctant cyclists to take it up.

[rogerzilla]

Most cycle infrastructure is terrible because of the loss of priority at every side road.  Cyclepaths that aren't next to roads and head straight across parkland or countryside can be useful, although other users can be a problem, as there are no real rules.

Most people will be put off by one or more of the effort, lack of changing/parking facilities, weather or danger from motorised traffic.  Plus there is a drip-drip of anti-cyclist sentiment in newspapers and social meeja.  Why can't the weirdos buy a car so they don't hold me up?

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

It’s quite possible that we have reached a ceiling for what we can do to persuade more people to cycle with current levels of cycling infrastructure. What’s needed now are massive investments in cycling infrastructure to persuade the next tranche of reluctant cyclists to take it up.

A lot of cycling infrastructure is a complete waste of time, money and effort.  Massive investments will antagonise the victimised motoring lobby.

[Cudzoziemiec]

John Grimshaw, founder of Sustrans, was interviewed in the local rag a couple of days ago. He's kind of ambivalent:

So have his four decades of building paths even made a dent in his home city?

“No, it hasn’t really,” he admitted. “I mean, the Bristol & Bath Path is probably by far still the most popular route in Bristol. And certainly the only one that is available to every sort of person, children, families and so on.”

I speculated that the Bristol & Bath Railway Path is perhaps a victim of its own success. “Well, that’s because they won’t build any more,” Grimshaw countered.

He then returned to what has defined his life’s work at Sustrans and now at Greenways & Cycleroutes: “I always saw building paths as a catalyst to change.

“I always thought that we would build a really good new path, we would demonstrate to the government that lots of people would cycle if they are given the chance and then the government would take over and build really inspiring systems which got cycling up to ten or 15 per cent more journeys, at least in the flatter parts of the country.”

“I’m almost of the idea that it was a bad idea to build the Bristol & Bath Path because it let government off the hook,” he said.

“Of course, it’s not a bad idea because without it, we would have had absolutely nothing.”

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/features/breakfast-with-bristol24-7-john-grimshaw/

[grams]

The solution to shit cycle infrastructure is to build good cycle infrastructure, not to stop trying. We have thankfully mostly stopped building cycle paths that give way at every side street.

Are there cycle paths in Bristol city centre these days? One in a cutting that dribbles to an end in an industrial estate is not exactly going to cause massive modal shift.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

We have thankfully mostly stopped building cycle paths that give way at every side street.

That must be very recent.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Are there cycle paths in Bristol city centre these days?

There are some quite good ones, and some pretty mediocre, and a lot that are just paint. The trouble is they don't make a network. For instance, from Old Market through Castle Park and along Baldwin St is good. But at the end of Baldwin St you're dumped into an area of shared space in the Centre (a specific area, not quite the same as the city centre!) where there is some sort of supposed cycle path in an otherwise pedestrianised space, but it's so indistinct it might as well not be there.

One of the newest is on a busy commercial street which also leads to one of the suburban rail stations. It's basically a pedestrianisation scheme you can cycle through – with care, but manages to also include on another section a bollarded contraflow which starts off okay but becomes just too narrow to feel totally comfortable, while on the other side of the bollards (in the with-main-flow direction) is a ridiculously narrow painted lane which can't do anything except encourage too close overtakes of those who are timid enough to feel they have to use it. Fortunately that road doesn't have much motor traffic (so in that sense the scheme has been a success).

One in a cutting that dribbles to an end in an industrial estate is not exactly going to cause massive modal shift.

Every time an improvement to the Railway Path is announced, the universal reaction is "okay but let's have something for the rest of the city too." Nevertheless, it's a great thing to have and is very well used.

[jwo]

The solution to shit cycle infrastructure is to build good cycle infrastructure, not to stop trying. We have thankfully mostly stopped building cycle paths that give way at every side street.

Absolutely this.

Addressing shopping as the most common form of trip, but is poorly supported via a bike, one needs good, safe route infrastructure, so that slow cycling (laden with shopping) is viable as well as secure cycle lockup and/or public bike hire with luggage carrying capacity. We are far from that at the moment, so any 'ceiling' is imposed by our lack of will to implement rather than some natural upper limit.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Oh, yeah, and bike parking: the shopping-street scheme I mentioned does include lots of parking, but it's almost all in the pedestrianised (I suppose semi-pedestrianised really) area, thus annoying the traders by taking away pavement-table space.

[TimC]

I don’t live in a city, a town or even in a large village. Like an awful lot of people, I live in the countryside where cycling infrastructure will never, ever be provided. I was part of an active-travel lobby group formed by a combination of my cycling club and the local environmental group which got some cycle parking facilities placed in the club’s host town in 2020, but it’s never used.

Quite a few people in my area dragged bikes out of their sheds/garages/ponds in 2020 and thoroughly enjoyed riding on the empty roads of lockdown, but as soon as drivers came back out again - more aggressive and angrier than before - to a man/woman they declared it far too scary and returned their bikes to whence they came.

Another consequence of social distancing and lockdowns was that no-one wanted to get in a bus with potential lurgy-carriers, so they disappeared too meaning that our country roads got considerably busier than before, often with cars driven by people who’d previously used (and should have kept using) the buses. These often elderly drivers are now causing far more than their fair share of mobile carnage!

I’m lucky that I can ride only when and where I want to, I don’t work, and I am fully in command of my driving skills, and I’m wealthy enough to be able to drive 5 miles to the nearest shop whenever I need to. Almost none of my neighbours would ever think of doing anything else. I imagine that pov exists all over the country and I see almost no hope of ever changing it. There may be more hope in richer, flatter big towns, but I’m not holding my breath any more.

[rogerzilla]

The Bristol-Bath railway path is successful because, almost uniquely, it doesn't cross many roads and it is all tarmac.  Most Sustrans paths are muddy MTB trails.  We only use NCN45 north out of Swindon once or twice a year when it's bone dry.  It's actually been closed for over a year while Thames Water do something in the area.

[Andy W]

I'm not remotely surprised at the continued lack of cycling over the past 20 years. My anecdotal observations are as follows.
Employment tends to be ever further from one's home.
Greater number of cars on the roads.
Aging population many of whom are risk averse.
Shifting demographic changes have skewed the younger population that might ordinarily use cycles.
As a resident of North Herts my observations are that the extensive cycle infrastructure in Stevenage is very underused. In fact apart from the local CTC ,of which im a member, I seldom see any other cyclists utilising the tracks so I doubt having greater cycling infrastructure would increase cycle usage.
On my paper round in the early 70s, i recall hundreds of men and  women cycling to work. Those days are half a century ago.
Accessibility to motor transport seems increasingly accessible via PCP.

[HTFB]

New school this morning, so a new school run. We recently moved close to my parents in south London and in our second attempt at finding a school to suit Sprocket 1 she and her little brother are now at the primary school[s*] I used to go to. It's a very similar journey, about a mile and a quarter. In the 1980s that meant piling 6 children from three families into one car -- these days you would need at least two. We are going to do it by bike, of course. But that was never on the radar when I was little. I didn't start using my bike to get about until I was about 12.

What has made a huge difference is an LTN. There are timed cameras blocking access to the junction by the school during drop off and collection, and that has more or less removed all traffic on the approaches. So where the shared-pavement "infrastructure" gives up we can just pull out and ride on the empty road. Sprocket 2 is only five. It is fine.

The remaining through route for cars is an absolute sewer in the mornings, mind you.

*plural, on a technicality.

[peter simplex]

Employment tends to be ever further from one's home.

Or to put it another way, thousands of 'desirable', car-dependent new-build [green/brownfield] estates sited miles from anywhere on or connected to dangerous roads. It's what people like...

.
Shifting demographic changes have skewed the younger population that might ordinarily use cycles.

Health changes too, I suspect. Cycling past Greater London secondary schools at throwing out time, one rarely sees a scholar on a bike, instead one observes long queues of frequently obese scholars waiting to ride a few stops.  It's all free of course.

Otherwise, a good summary, Andy.

[Dickyelsdon]

I'm not remotely surprised at the continued lack of cycling over the past 20 years. My anecdotal observations are as follows.
Employment tends to be ever further from one's home.
Greater number of cars on the roads.
Aging population many of whom are risk averse.
Shifting demographic changes have skewed the younger population that might ordinarily use cycles.
As a resident of North Herts my observations are that the extensive cycle infrastructure in Stevenage is very underused. In fact apart from the local CTC ,of which im a member, I seldom see any other cyclists utilising the tracks so I doubt having greater cycling infrastructure would increase cycle usage.
On my paper round in the early 70s, i recall hundreds of men and  women cycling to work. Those days are half a century ago.
Accessibility to motor transport seems increasingly accessible via PCP.

A prominent cycle journalist once told me 'New-Towns' with cycle infrastructure dont work because they are also easy towns to drive in.  In short, cycling wont be the better choice unless you make driving the worse choice. 

I only got my driving license and a car 5 years ago, at the age of 37.  Its vastly more convenient for everything, this idea from cycle campaigns that 'cycling is as quick as driving' is wild, maybe if you live and drive in central London or in the middle of a major city, but ive certainly never experienced it.  My 45min cycle commute is 21min in the car, 35min if i do it at a bad time, 1hr15min on the bus!   I still ride, because I enjoy it, but I have a much better understanding of why more people dont.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

It isn't just central London. My commute to the office is about 70-80 minutes each way regardless of whether I take the Tube/ train, car or bicycle. About 30km through outer west London suburbs. The shortest route is my cycle route, which is also the most reliable in duration.
EDIT: Just checked getting between home and work by public transport. Every option is >90 minutes.

[telstarbox]

Mine is town => countryside => village but the difference isn't massive - in school term time it's 40 minutes by car or 50 minutes by bike. However parts of it have a 60mph limit and that leads to impatient driving!

[Lightning Phil]

  My 45min cycle commute is 21min in the car, 35min if i do it at a bad time, 1hr15min on the bus!   I still ride, because I enjoy it, but I have a much better understanding of why more people dont.
[/quote]

But if you drive you then have to add 30 mins extra to get your minimum daily exercise in. Thus cycle commuting more time efficient even in your situation of clear roads with no traffic.

[Dickyelsdon]

But if you drive you then have to add 30 mins extra to get your minimum daily exercise in. Thus cycle commuting more time efficient even in your situation of clear roads with no traffic.

Hmm, true, but do you actually think most people do that much exercise?  I know gyms are more popular but part of the reason more people dont want to cycle is that they dont want to exercise. And cycling isnt easy if its not something you do all the time.

[Cudzoziemiec]

"Cycling to work means you don't have to exercise" implies "Cycling is hard work (and you'll arrive at work exhausted and sweaty)". For those people who do choose to do 30 minutes deliberate exercise every day, they probably prefer to be able to choose the time, place and type of exercise, rather than feeling that going to work is a form of exercise. "Cycling is an easy way to get places" seems a far more attractive line.

[Neilatclyro]

Mary and I have just been cycling in the Netherlands on the way to Aachen and Cologne.  The cycling infrastructure in the Nl is amazing and as a result enormous numbers of people of all shapes, sizes and ages cycle or ebike, both within and between towns and villages.  Most are not in cycling gear and are clearly using their bike as their primary form of transport going about their business. This is not surprising given the safe, convenient and comprehensive network of cycle paths.   What has been achieved in Nl shows what can be done with political will and perhaps a more sensible and grown-up population than prevails in the UK.  Perhaps our transport ministers should be invited by cycling UK to cycle through some of the UK then on via Harwich through the Netherlands and into Germany in order to see at first hand the art of the possible and exactly how backward and barbaric is the UK.       

[Adam]

Politicians here in the UK just aren't prepared to be honest and say things have got to change, despite the UK having just about the highest rates of adult obesity in Europe.  They've had decades of pushing car use, so that the majority of the public now expects to be able to jump in a car for every type of journey, oblivious to the problems that causes by way of congestion, pollution etc etc.

So even though we know the bike is the solution to just about everything, they're not going to go about installing comprehensive, joined up segregated cycle lanes throughout all urban areas.  Unfortunately.

[yoav]

The difference is that in the Netherlands (as well as some other European countries) cycling infrastructure is mandated nationally by the government and properly funded whereas here it the responsibility of local authorities, some of whom are keen, others not, others dilly-dally, consult endlessly and then water plans down in response to a few shouty motorists. All on a background of varying, short-term funding.