How Far Would You Go Out Of Your Way?
After yesterday’s post about how nice and straight the path alonside the Coast Road is, I got thinking about nice direct routes, and traffic-free routes in general.
It’s just so much quicker to get to the centre of Newcastle by going direct, rather than the routes I usually take, that I struggle to understand why I don’t go that way every time. But here’s the thing - imagine if I lived on a busy road that ran parallel to a great bike route. How close would that bike-friendly route have to be for me to take the detour down to it, rather than just heading along the busy road?
I don’t know the answer to this. But what about you - do you add mileage to your trip just to get to a really bike-friendly route?
While you’re thinking about that, have a look at this video (which I’ve posted before) about Houten in the Netherlands. Bikes there seem to have the best of everything - routes that are direct, and no traffic. It makes you wonder why people would drive at all there!
I always take the road less traveled, in a city with a grid system it doesn’t add but maybe a mile most of the time but it’s worth it. Using http://www.bikely.com (google map mashup) I find neighborhood streets that parallel main roads and also have lights at perpendicular main road crossings. This route shows an example of such plotting: http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Bike-to-Work-Day-4-22-2009-Route
I’ve a set of posts showing bits of video (including that one) and photos which demonstrate directness of cycle routes in NL.
It’s one of the fundamental features of design. Cycle routes are always the short routes (except for deliberately scenic routes, of course, which also exist in addition to the direct ones).
One example is the new bicycle road along the canal here in Assen. It was deemed necessary because of a new housing development (eventually 8000 homes) on the west of the city. This must be connected to the centre by a good cycle route. So, they took the existing road in that direction, closed it to cars except for access only, lifted the dual carriageway ring road onto a bridge over a cycle path link directly to it (so that cyclists were not expected to go through a little hole in the ground to go under, and to make sure that they didn’t have to cross the dual carriageway). This links with the old road, which now has barriers preventing cars from using it other than for access, and on which cars are legally considered to be “guests of the bicycle”. As a result you can cycle from the new houses in an almost straight line to the city centre without seeing any traffic lights.
Or you can of course drive. However, that means going on a bit of a detour, dealing with three sets of traffic lights and two roundabouts, and having to find and pay for a parking space a short distance outside the centre.
There is no reason to add mileage to get a cycle friendly route, even in a 750 year old city like ours. Take the direct route and it will be cycle friendly. Perhaps it won’t even be a route at all for cars.
I’m lucky, the cycle route (not path) runs from right next to my house all the way to work. Given the choice between that (a nice quiet route and only a fraction longer than the main road) and fighting with the buses through Dalston and Shoreditch - it wins hands down every time.
I add about a mile to my regular journey to take the quiet back roads and avoid the big lorry-infested A road. Actually the A-road in question does have a cycle path but it’s the usual bonkers affair - starts and ends in the middle of nowhere, only on one side of the road, and shared with pedestrians which would be more of a problem if there were any.
I’ll also go the long way round to avoid any kind of multi-lane roundabout unless it’s traffic-light controlled. I’ve cycled them in the past, but I just got sick of being nearly killed all the time. Life’s too short. Literally, in some cases
My routes are based more on traffic volumes than length. The roads on my commute in are always jam-packed. I’m not a fan of taking the gap between lanes of traffic, so I take the slower cycle-friendly route (this happens to be shorter but slower).
On my ride home the roads are always quieter (same roads - MUCH less traffic!?) so I take a slightly longer, but quicker route.
I guess it depends on my purpose for riding. If I’m training then I’m generally on roads rather than shared paths. If I’m commuting then it’s very much based on traffic and time. If I’m out for a more leisurely ride then yes, I’ll definitely go out of my way to find paths.
I wonder if the Netherlands/Denmark has sports cyclists and where they fit in? Do they go out of their way to NOT be on the cycle routes among the slower riders? I’m curious!
Magicroundabout wonders “If the Netherlands has sports cyclists…”
Here’s the answer: Cycle sport is _extremely_ popular here. It’s reflected in the racing results. The population is a quarter that of the UK, and an 18th that of the US, but there have been ten times as many Dutch tour de france stage winners as English winners and six times as many as the US.
There are many seriously fast cyclists here, and they train on the cycle paths - which support very high speeds.
It’s basically very simple. Think of any kind of cycling you like and you will find it will be popular beyond your wildest dreams in the Netherlands (and Denmark too - they don’t do badly in the tour either given how low their population is).
I take a longer route home (3.2 miles) than to work (2.7 miles) mainly in order to get the hill climb out of the way, which is then followed by a fairly level along-the-valley-side section.
This route also has the advantage of having much less traffic in the first half, and being wider but still not traffic-heavy in the second half.
I take a slightly longer route through neighborhoods to avoid busy secondary roads. This is vital in a city where a pedestrian can stand at a crosswalk (zebra crossing) for five minutes before a car will stop for them. The most amazing thing about the video for me is seeing the cars yield to bikes.