I googled for modal shift studies. The first one I found was this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856416301495 Two types of exposure measures were tested: distance from the infrastructure (a measure of potential usage), and actual usage of the infrastructure. Only the latter measure was statistically significantly associated with modal shift. This in turn suggested that infrastructure provision was not a sufficient condition for modal shift, but may have been a necessary condition. Along with the use of new infrastructure, the loss of employment, higher education, being male and being part of the ethnic majority were consistently found to be significantly and positively associated with modal shift towards walking and cycling. The findings of this study support the construction of walking and cycling routes, but also suggest that such infrastructure alone may not be enough to promote active travel.
Basically, if you are urban, male, ethnic majority, and have lost your job, infrastructure will get you travelling by bike.
This data is from 2012, which is clearly too out of date for our purposes, but the study itself seems a good one. I'd really like to see some work done on what convinced people to get out on their bikes more this past year, and whether it has made any difference to how they interact with cyclists on the road when driving. It's an opportunity to learn what tipped the balance for them. For a number of people I've talked to, it was nothing to do with infrastructure -- it was being able to buy an e-bike.
Upthread is a comment that driver training hasn't worked and infrastructure has -- what about places where there is infrastructure here? Have any studies been done on driver attitudes there? Milton Keynes, maybe? Or is all the data from other countries?
I feel like the "more infrastructure" argument is just as ingrained as the vehicular cycling one. The difference is that one is aimed at urban and suburban areas where urban planning can be altered to require such provisions, whereas the other has ambitions to work everywhere.
Presumed liability would go some way to helping adjust driver behaviour on rural roads.
My issue isn't with the concept of segregated infrastructure, it's what is meant by it. It's almost always a facility alongside or instead of a road that involves weird diversions, crossing points, conflict points, and things drivers can point at and fume over because money was spent. I'd like to see lines drawn around whole areas and drivers told they can't bring their vehicles in. Delivery only, and only at certain times of day along prescribed routes (with the exception of disabled vehicles). That's no longer them-and-us. That then becomes places for people not cars, and if I want to live in this delightful suburb where my children can play safely, I have to accept I can't drive in there.
Places for people as a concept is embedded into National Planning Framework 4 in Scotland. I'm not sure it's yet as extreme as "no cars here", but we can hope? Decarbonisation is going to require an entirely different approach to personal transport. Those conversations are already being had at government level. Turning to electric or even self-driving cars isn't enough. We need to move away from the concept of motorised transport being something that people can own and keep for themselves as a general expectation. Build places where people can live without needing or feeling the need to have a car. That solves your urban traffic issue. Exclude motorised vehicles from existing infrastructure, but not just a lane for a short distance -- entire areas.
I am not arguing that all segregated infrastructure is always bad or counter-productive or doesn't serve a purpose. I'm just trying to point out there are flaws, and those flaws need to be addressed lest we shoot ourselves in the SPD. It has been nearly 20 years since I pointed out to someone in the CTC (as it was) campaigning arm that segregation causes problems for existing cyclists and met with agreement. How long do we pursue retro-fitted segregation as the ideal without addressing how it makes things worse for people already out there acting as role models?
I'm not here for a fight. Gods. I left all cycling fora for years because I am getting too old for arguing about shit on the internet. It just stresses me out and makes the rest of my day unenjoyable. But is dedicated cycling infrastructure alongside the existing road network (other than the likes of Sustrans leisure routes) the only answer? Or can we do better than that? If that was the right answer 40 or 60 years ago, is it the right answer now? Does the acknowledged climate crisis mean we can be more radical?
How do we get to the point where even people who do not regularly cycle feel like it's perfectly reasonable to jump on a bike, whether it's for a mile pootle to the shop for a pint of milk, a 20km commute, or 300km or more audax? Is there anything we are doing right now that is hampering that progress?
Sam