2 important lessons I learned from the Dutch Cycle Brunch.

The Dutch Cycle Brunch was very interesting and I learned 2 very significant lessons taking to the guys from Artgineering that I think are well worth sharing.

Lesson 1: Context.

I am extremely frustrated at the lack of basic quality of the cycling infrastructure in Vienna.  I have zero professional or education experience or interest in urban traffic planning but I realize that there are some fundamental problems with cycling infrastructure in Vienna that are being ignored deliberately. In The Netherlands they have gone through the process of developing solutions that actually work. I am very pleased that I am not the only one that sees the real issues clearly but at times it seams like no one in Vienna agrees with me and if they do they believe the solutions are not remotely politically realistic.

From my understanding Artgineering are trying to make better urban spaces that incorporate the bicycle as a modern form of mobility.  The technical issues are of no interest because they are known and clear.  What is often missing in infrastructure projects is attention to the spacial / social / experience  and other basic architectural factors.

When I meet Stefan it quickly became clear that we were not understanding each other at all.  He had no interest in the technical detail planning of cycle paths and I had no interest in the cultural or historical reliance of a space.  I just want to know how the hell normal people on bikes could get from this side of the junction to the other side without having a fight or an accident.  He wanted to know why would they want to go there anyway....  There was a definite clash of 2 worlds and totally different contexts.

So lesson 1 is know the context. The Dutch Consultants that come to Vienna and see strange behavior and interesting bike culture should realize that is because the cycling infrastructure is basically crap.  Cycle advocates that talk to Dutch consultants should realize that they really have no idea that there could be even a discussion about whether people want to cycling in the middle of a busy main road.

I am really grateful that Stefan took the time to talk me out of my frustration into trying to look at the bigger picture.  When he gave his presentation the light bulb went on and I understood lesson 2.

Lesson 2: Do not build the bike infrastructure purely in the image of a space efficient car.

In Stefan's presentation he showed an artists impression of a state of the art high speed cycle super highway that really was a super highway.  There was no possibility for cars or pedestrians to get in the way and there was no way you could be slowed. It had entry and and exit lanes and ramps.  I presume on busy sections you would have multiple lanes and maybe a barrier in the middle just like a car motorway.  I saw the artist impression and thought yes that is exactly what we need to reduce the conflict and make the bike network clear consistent and efficient.

However then the light bulb went on and I thought why the hell would I would to actually use the superhighway to cycle on and be disconnected from the world like I am in my car. Why not just get in the car and drive like all the other Zombies?

For the Dutch the technical understanding is known and it is easy for them to implement great quality mobility in urban spaces.  Their congested cities have invested in the bike and they use the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic as a guide.  If they really want to go one step better and make really great cities and Urban spaces then they need to look at the architecture and experience of traveling in the space.  This is cycling infrastructure the next steps and it seams that Artgineering at least are trying to get the Dutch to develop new ideas along these lines.

There is a world of difference between the Dutch standard technical level and the rest of the world.  There is such a divide that it is really hard to understand them. If Dutch consultants want to work in places like Vienna they need to go back 40 years with their level of discussion and try to press it forward fast.  If advocates, politicians or planners deal with Dutch consultants they have to realize that it takes time to understand.

Vehicular cyclists have failed miserably to integrate cylcing on the roads. The Dutch have used traffic engineering and developed good quality technical design to make cycling main stream.  The dammage that  Vechicular Cyling advocates still do needs to be eliminated and the Dutch model understood and implemented properly if cycling is to become main stream and cities are to benefit from it.  However we "Go Dutch"  advocates need to be careful that (if people ever actually listen to us) we do not use our understanding of quality car infrastructure to advocate building the same rubbish car experience on a  bike.  This is all very complicated and difficult to get right but I think we have to try.

The highlight of Velocity 2013.

This interview with Mikael Coville-Andersen communicates exactly why this Blog is here.

http://derstandard.at/1369363646437/Kultur-der-Angst-gegen-Radfahren

Vienna will probably ignore you but the quality of life of its citizens will suffer until it gets competent planners that understand the basic technical criteria for good infrastructure and it chooses better urban planning. I hope there are some politicians somewhere that will see the huge opportunity Vienna has if they concentrate on the quality of the infrastructure as well as just marketing. They will have to be brave to take on city departments and question the dominance of cars but it will happen the only question is when.

Thank you so much Mikael for your informed no bullshit words.

Operngasse and Herrengasse Traffic Data and Radwegbenutungsbullshit.

I sat at Radlager Palazzo which is in the middle of Operngasse and counted traffic.  This is to provide a bit of background information for the Dutch Cycle Brunch.  This is not an accurate picture of the traffic it is just a random sample.

Friday 7.6.2013
16:00 - 16:30  (30 mins. of counting)
Not rush hour but quite busy time of a sunny day.

Bus: 4
Motorbikes: 33
Cars: 538
Bikes in the Bus / Taxi Lane 10
Bikes on the cycle path travelling South: 72
Bikes on the cycle path travelling North: 46
Total number of bikes: 128
 
To be honest I was very surprised by this.  I expected there to be no one cycling on the busy 3 lane road in the bus, taxi and bike lane but there were a surprisingly (to me) large number of people doing this.

I think it is fair to say that on this day at this time 1 in 7 cyclists chose the road (only counting North to South Traffic).  The use of the road here is thanks to the groundbreaking new relaxation of the Radwegebenutzungspflicht on this one street. 

Is this an example of a real change for cyclists that will help Vienna reach its target of 10% modal share for bikes by 2015?

Would the 1 in 7 cyclists cycle anyway?

Would new cyclists be tempted out of their cars to use the road rather than the cyclepath?

Does this improve the conditions and give lots more space to the majority of cyclists?

Does this reduce the traffic light wait time and improve the light synchronization for the majority of cyclists?

Lets look at the whole population in terms of 4 cyclist groups.

Vienna has 6.2% modal share for bikes.  So does this look like the 1% of the population (Strong and Fearless) advocating what they want and ignoring the 67%?  Are the enthused cyclists the other 7% on the cylepath?  How do we get a significant proportion of the "Interested but Concerned" 60% to choose a bike for transport?

Maybe we should copy the Dutch and make the bike a convenient, quick, safe and pleasant option? Or maybe we should listen to the 1% and scrap the cycle paths and share the road?

My view of the Radwegbenutungsflicht is that it is the biggest waste of energy and time to fight street for street for something that people who will cycle anyway feel they are entitled to after years of repression.  They maybe have a point but only 1% of the population cares.  The other 99% want to get from AtoB preferably with less conflict and congestion.  Surely it is time to  focus on the important stuff and design better roads and urban spaces that cater for the needs of the whole population?

Feedback requested on Operngasse and Herrengasse for Dutch Bicycle Brunch.

As part of the VeloCity Week there will be a "Dutch Bicycle Brunch" on the 15th of June at the fahrRADhaus in cooperation with the Radlobby Österreich. The full invitation is available here.

Artgineering are Dutch Planning Consultants that will look at Operngasse and Herrengasse through some Dutch eyes and discuss the space.  This workshop has nothing to do with this blog but I was volunteered to help them with the organisation of the event.  I have taken 2 videos of the route and suggested what I see as the main problem areas.  However it would be really great to get get feedback from other local cyclists so that they have more feedback than my cynical rants.

Here are the videos of the route.  Please excuse my bad language / bad German / riducule of existing infrastructure and traffic law violations...




I think it is really important to get local feedback about this route so that the Workshop can be as informed and accurate as possible.  So please get involved and post your comments in German or English below, or email me: doug at culnane dot net.

I will compile and translate the feedback and I really look forward to the results.  The workshop is open to members of the public so please do also come along if you are interested.

Burgtor: 3rd time lucky?

The original Burgtor crossing was a pedestrian slalom disaster.

This got redesigned and made much much worse:

This has now been redesigned again and now looks like this:

As the IGF Blog points out the desire line of pedestrinas and cyclists has been totally ignored.  The rediculasly wide road with low traffic has not been questioned or addressed and unnatural behavior of pedestrains expected.

At least the turning cars now have stacking space and do not have to worry about getting rammed by a tram as they negotiate through the pedestrians, but that is the only improvement.

This is what I think the Dutch would do:

However "Wien ist Anders".  Why do the Vienna planners need to create so much conflict between road users, when it is not necessary?  This whole story would be funny if it was not such an embarrassing mess that creates so much conflict and resentment between groups.  This is just one crossing at one junction...

I belive people will choose to cycle if it is the quickest, most convenient and a safe way to get from A to B.  If the city really want to increase cycling modal share then they need to understand that this level of planning is not good enough.  Back to the drawing board or are we expected to put up with this crap.

Congestion

Safety is a big argument that can bring about dramatic change in the way we design roads and lead to better infrastructure for cyclists.  However the unwritten rule amongst cycling advocates (but often electronically posted comment) is that we do not talk about safety because it discourages cycling (unless talking about cycle paths off course).

Congestion is another issue that I think motivates people for change and to rethink how we travel.  I ride my bike for many reasons but mainly becuase it is the fasted way to get where I want to go.  I know that when I sit in a traffic jam I am ready to consider anything as an alternative (often suicide seams like an option).  Maybe technology is the answer and we now have the navigation software that re-routes based on traffic congestion data.  This is wonderful but we still have traffic jams and millions of lost hours per year due to congestion.  No one cares unless it happens to them and when it does there is not much they can do about it apart form suicide which just creates even more congestion for others.

R. J. Smeed, noted that at some minimum speed, motorists would simply choose not to drive. If speeds fell below 9 mph (15.5 kmph), then drivers would keep away; as speeds rose above this limit, it would draw more drivers out until the roads became congested again.

Is Smeed right?  Is the speed of a chicken the best car infrastructure can ever hope to archive in an urban environment?  Are people interested in alternatives?

Lets look at the most congested Cities in Europe:

Lets compare these cities to the Copenhagenize Index of Bicycle Friendly Cities.

Is it fair to conclude that the top bicycle cities are dealing with congestion better than the cities that build more roads and have no space for cycling infrastructure? Does modal shift provide a real alternative to congestion in our ever crowded cities?  Is this more complicated and there is no relationship at all; in which case allocating space away from cars to cyclists does not have any effect on congestion?

Maybe this is something to consider the next time you loose an hour of your life with people around you that are too afraid to cycle so drive their kids to school before driving to work themselves.  Maybe those kids could enjoy cycling to school on their own?  Maybe this is something to consider as a powerful argument that will communicate the benifits of cycling to a main stream and get support.

If only this (and other benefits) could be communicated in one simple info graphic.

Maybe cycling advocates have a golden bullet to get main stream support for Dutch cycling infrastructure! 

BUT

There is something cycling advocates also have to recongnise about congestion.  When there is no congestion, people in cars drive faster than a chicken.  Normal people on bikes do not like cyclinging around motor vechicles that are trying to travel faster than them or chickens.  The stop start nature of congestion is not the same as the flowing dynamic of bikes even thought they have very similar averages speeds. As congestion decreases this problem gets worse as less cars drive faster.  Removing cars from the road speeds traffic and leads to an unpleasant cycling environment.  So less cars is not the answer to cycling problems with cars. The roads need to change which is why the Dutch do not expect less cars in general to be the solution for cycle infrastructure and people to use bikes for no reason at all.

The solution to congestion is a viable alternative to the car that has its own separate space and restricts fast moving cars and congestion to it self limiting space.  If you "need to use a car" you can but if you need to get from A to B you can choose the best option only if you have options.

Radwege are Dangerous Bullshit.

I have heard that "Radwege are Dangerous" from  Rad lobbies, District Representatives, Politicians, the Cycle Agency and countless 25 year old male cyclists in Vienna. These comments are backed up with references to studies  showing that junctions are problematical when cycle paths meet motor traffic.  Therefore we should "Share the Road" which seams to be a large part of the policy focus in Vienna, probably because it is cheap and politically easy to implement.

Firstly the studies often do not take into account the quality of the Junctions design.  They are often mis-translated and misused using absolute numbers of accidents, ignoring the dramatic increase in numbers of cyclists that occurs when separate cycle paths are built.  Anyone that pretends there is absolute proof about this is just a lair or a brain washed member of the Vehicular Cyclist Sect.

The Dutch have an excellent safety record for cyclists despite a wide range of ages cycling and many supposedly dangerous cycle paths.  This is often explained  away as being a Safety in Numbers effect.  However this shows either a blatant ignorance of Sustainable Safety principles or a dishonest distortion of the truth.  For sure these are complex themes with many contributing many factors but I think the basic conclusion that Radwege are dangerous shows nothing but arrogance, ignorance and dishonesty.

If  you mention that cycling on busy roads is dangerous then you get quickly shot down for dangerzing cycling and discouraging it by the exact same group who tell you Radwege are Dangerous.

This image seams to be the best statistical safety comparison between the UK and The Netherlands.

The UK has a mix strategy (or no strategy) and the Dutch use Sustainable Safety to engineer their streets which is largely a strategy of conflict reduction and separation of different traffic modes and road functions.

So either there is a safety in numbers effect or mixing cycle traffic on busy roads is dangerous.  Lets ignore the traffic planning and routing, the different junctions designs and road types, the fault tolerance of these designs and all the work that the Dutch have done over 40 years funded by a 30 Euro per person per year budget and say that has had no effect of safety in any way (as some members of the Sect would like you to believe).  Lets just say it is all because of Safety in Numbers.  So how do we get the numbers?

Either we can copy the UK which has a third of Austria's modal share for bikes or we can copy The Netherlands which has 3 times Austria's cycle modal share.  I would suggest that the Dutch have been better at maintaining or increasing the number of cyclists than the British. 

Either way (safety in numbers magic fairy dust or 40 years of cycle friendly road design development) lets please copy the Dutch strategy because it works for some reason.  To do this we need public support and to most people you loose that support instantly when you tell them them cycle paths are dangerous and for beginners and scared old people or children.  No one wants to be in the inferior group and most normal people are not comportable cycling on busy roads, so it is a hard sell.

Today a big important announcement was made that would be perfect if the following sentence was not in it.

"Radwege sind besonders wichtig, um weniger Geübte, Kinder, Seniorinnen und Senioren zum Radfahren einzuladen"

Translated this means: "Cycle paths are only useful for inferior cyclists that are not good enough to cycle on the road so we will allow you to cycling on footpaths if there is space."

I really hope I have misunderstood and mis-translated that but I worry that I have not, and that the "cyclists belong on the road" V. C. Sect will combine with weak politics to create a city with footpaths built for pedestrians and roads built for cars.  The hope that the "Kultur des Miteinanders" will happen by magic (or  advertising campaign) and mean cyclists will be tolerated in both environments.  This will not work and so we can expect a lot more conflict in the press and on the roads, as people struggle to cope with an environment that ignores their needs.  It is time to stop listening to cyclists.