More big increases in cycling

[Earl Aelfheah]

More big increases in cycling in London... "Cycling journeys in the capital have increased by 43% over the past six years to 1.5 million a day": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly02lljdero?app-referrer=deep-link

Edited Thursday at 21:22 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

Particularly notable is the growth in inner London, which actually outstrips Central -  cycling is up 12.8 percent in central, 14.8 percent in inner London and 9.9 percent in outer London.

Cycling now accounts for nearly half of all tube journeys in London – up from a third in just a couple of years.

[Spartacus]

On 05/12/2025 at 09:18, Earl Aelfheah said:

Cycling now accounts for nearly half of all tube journeys in London – up from a third in just a couple of years.

WTF, are people cycling along the tube tracks now, causing delays to tube trains as they have to wait behind that one cyclist taking their time ? 

How bizarre 😅

[march46]

I think that stat is being taken a bit too literally here - no one’s suggesting cyclists are riding down tube tunnels. It’s just a comparison of overall journey volume. Joking aside, the real takeaway is that cycling levels are rising fastest in inner London, which has big implications for congestion, air quality and street design. That’s probably the more useful angle to discuss.

Edited yesterday at 12:05 by march46

[Spartacus]

Whilst I was of course making fun of the wording, there is also an interesting point being made here that cycle lanes are slowing down buses 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/cycle-lanes-have-slowed-london-bus-journeys-says-transport-minister/ar-AA1RKMlc

 

Guess thete is a balance to be had where one form.of transport isn't penalised by another 

Edited yesterday at 12:39 by Spartacus

[malumbu]

They have repurposed some former elevated railways to cycle lanes and ten years or so the concept of having cycle lanes in tunnels such as disused tube lines was proposed

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/05/bike-paths-abandoned-tube-tunnels-london-underline

[DulvilleRes]

These are encouraging stats, and bear out the huge uptake in cycling I've been witnessing over the past couple of years. I had a situation recently in Kennington where there were so many cyclists waiting at the red cycle lane traffic light, that some at the back like me didn't actually get through when it turned green, and had to wait for the next phase. That just wouldn't have happened even 5 years ago. 

The stats really do put to bed some of the nonsense that has been spouted on these threads that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of time, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result. Any of us properly out and about knew what was really happening. I think the cycle infrastructure has encouraged more cautious users onto the road, even in winter. 

[first mate]

14 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

s. I had a situation recently in Kennington where there were so many cyclists waiting at the red cycle lane traffic light, that some at the back like me didn't actually get through when it turned green

Good to hear the cyclists actually waited behind the red light. 

14 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

The stats really do put to bed some of the nonsense that has been spouted on these threads that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of time, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result. Any of us properly out and about knew what was really happening. I think the cycle infrastructure has encouraged more cautious users onto the road, even in winter. 

I think it just depends where you are. Closer to the centre of town, yes, but every time I go past Sydenham Hill, I am lucky to spot one if any cyclists.

[Rockets]

19 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

The stats really do put to bed some of the nonsense that has been spouted on these threads that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of time, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result. Any of us properly out and about knew what was really happening. I think the cycle infrastructure has encouraged more cautious users onto the road, even in winter. 

Did anyone actually say that? I don't think they did. I think they said that, even whilst being supportive of the need for safer cycling infrastructure, that at some point you have to look at the ROI - as @first mate says Sydenham Hill is just one massive spend that does not come close to passing the ROI test -a huge chunk of tax-payers money sitting idle most of the time.

Since 2019 there has been roughly £800m spent on cycling infrastructure in London and I am not sure a 43% increase is showing that that has delivered what was promised - remember around Covid when Will Norman was lobbying for £ and said that there could be a 10x increase in cycling? The latest numbers basically means that for every two cyclists in 2019 there are now three - good progress but hardly earth shattering - they haven't even got to a 0.5x increase yet. 

What is also interesting is that in the very same report TFL that cites the 43% increase in cycling it says that buses are getting slower and slower averaging 9.2 miles per hour in London - (slower than they were in the preceding years - pre- and post-Covid yet on a background of lower overall traffic levels that pre-Covid) and there has been criticism of the way TFL and the Major have carved up bus lanes in certain parts of London to install cycle infrastructure - much of these to the detriment to bus journey times. Since the high point in 2014/15 the number of bus journeys taken is a whopping 22.8% lower and year on year saw a decline of another 1.5% (only DLR and Trams were the others that saw a decrease in numbers).

[malumbu]

But surely it is good news if more people are cycling.  Yes or no?  

[Rockets]

Yes, of course it is.

Do you think the growth is aligned with the spend of £800m in cycling infrastructure in London and promises of a 10x increase in cycling numbers made by those spending the money? Seems a lot of money for not a great return when considering the impact on other transport modes. Yes or no.

[Spartacus]

10 minutes ago, malumbu said:

But surely it is good news if more people are cycling.  Yes or no?  

Only if it doesn't impact other forms of public transport, if buses are slower and with the now more common shorter route forcing passengers to change to get to their destination (thus incurring additional waiting time) some may just give up and drive everywhere thus defeating the drive to have fewer car journeys 

As ibsaid earlier, thete is a balance to be achieved.

Edited 2 hours ago by Spartacus

[Penguin68]

33 minutes ago, malumbu said:

But surely it is good news if more people are cycling.  Yes or no?  

Actually, I'm not sure it is 'good news'. Nor that it's bad news, of course. Necessarily. As Spartacus says, it may have knock on effects on others, or on other cost decisions. For those who are in some way disabled, by age or other problems, either on a permanent or temporary basis, a 100% cycling infrastructure would be wholly terrible. For them. And the more other options are reduced in value, or increased in cost by having such an infrastructure, the worse it is. Equally, for those considering cycling is 'healthy' - well I imagine many keen exercisers might be dismayed if that was the only choice open. If you prefer to run, or swim, or work out in the gym, then being told that the answer is cycling might not be what you want to hear. 

Oh, and if the 'more people cycling' are doing so in the flat areas of central London and using electric assisted bikes then the health benefits are probably limited as well.

[Rockets]

10 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Oh, and if the 'more people cycling' are doing so in the flat areas of central London and using electric assisted bikes then the health benefits are probably limited as well.

It is interesting that many in the Netherlands are worried that there are a generation of youngsters/teenagers who are getting much less exercise due to the popularity of e-bikes. Now, of course, in the UK the starting position is very different as most are not brought up cycling the in the way the Dutch are but I do wonder how many Lime bike journeys (which I am sure make up a huge number of the 43% increase) are actually replacing walking - a net active travel loss if so. If our kids are indicative they are beyond lazy and if they see a Lime bike will jump on it no matter how walkable the journey actually is - this may also be linked to their parents paying rather than them of course! 

16 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Actually, I'm not sure it is 'good news'. Nor that it's bad news, of course.

I don't know about you but I did read the TFL headline and thought - is that all and I was shocked how low it was - there are times when I cycle where it feels much more but that does tend to be on cycling arterial routes so maybe it is the funnelling effect?