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 Sunday 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 Sunday 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 Monday at 16:22 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?

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

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.

Yes it is good that cyclists numbers are increasing and it is a good investment.  All government investment has to go through an assessment on the return.  That will be measured in terms of reduced motorised traffic, benefits to the environment, health and wellbeing.

Here's government policy under Johnson to promote walking and cycling under 'social prescribing'

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/walking-wheeling-and-cycling-to-be-offered-on-prescription-in-nationwide-trial

[Earl Aelfheah]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

On 07/12/2025 at 17:46, 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?

Yes they did:

On 12/10/2023 at 10:17, Rockets said:

the long-term trend is that, even after the installation of masses of new infrastructure, cycling growth has stalled (I read recently that Santander bikes saw a 22% drop in usage year-on-year which TFL put down to bad weather)

Will Norman and others have built the huge investment and disruption of cycle infrastructure on the back of a premise of "if we build it they will come" but can anyone see anything that they are coming in the numbers needed

 

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

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.

I don't know where the £800m figure comes from. TfL's business plan shows a recurring budget for "Healthy Streets" of £150 million a year (pre-inflation). That fund supports walking, cycling, bus priority and other sustainable transport initiatives (so not just 'cycling infrastructure').

For context, TfL's total annual spend is around £11 billion. As already stated, cycling in London is now equivalent to nearly half of all tube journeys, so a 1% ish investment doesn't seem excessive.

According to the IPPR for every pound spent on 'active travel' there is an average return on investment of £5.62.

Edited yesterday at 09:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Oh @Earl Aelfheah you're at it again. You're using a quote from two years ago massively out of context. Check your facts: in 2023 cycling growth had stalled - in fact between 2022-2023-2024 the rate of growth (according to TFL's estimates) declined year-on-year. This year TFL figures say growth (based on their estimates) more than doubled year-on-year from 5% in 23/24 to 12.7% in 24/25 - the first increase in three reports (since 2021/22 report) - they give no reason for this headline grabbing growth just that is due to the Mayor's and TFL's investment in infrastructure. Interestingly the very same report concludes that the proportion of London householders who cycled actually decreased from 23% to 22%. https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s25367/board-20251203-item08b-Appendix 1 travel-in-london-2025-report.pdf

Can anyone suggest what has led to the sudden massive jump in cycling growth in the last year whilst TFL's own report suggests Londoners are cycling less than the year before? 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't know where the £800m figure comes from, but I doubt that's one years spending.

That is how much has been estimated to have been invested in cycle infrastructure since 2019 in London.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As already stated, cycling in London is now equivalent to nearly half of all tube journeys.

In what context - do you mean the number of cycled stages - the wording needs to be very careful here? TFL actually says in their report that the number of cycle stages (stages is important as it is not cyclists but cycled stages - a stage is a Lime bike to a station or a delivery bike journey to a delivery) is equivalent to the number of people who board Northern and Piccadilly line trains daily. Context and the methodology for the collation of these figures is very important - they are designed to create good headlines for TFL and some media lap it up. Perhaps a more indicative and telling stat is that the trip-based mode share for cycling in London is 4.7% - but that one doesn't make such a good headline and is buried in the depths of the full TFL report!

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

That is how much has been estimated to have been invested in cycle infrastructure since 2019 in London

Oh, OK. Well annually it's less than £150m , out of a total spend of around £11 billion. It's a tiny proportion of that total spend.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

You're using a quote from two years ago massively out of context. Check your facts

Ok. I will. In response to @DulvilleRes rightly pointing out that:

On 07/12/2025 at 17:46, 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.

 You asked:

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

Did anyone actually say that?

So I'm just answering your question. The answer is yes, you have said it.

You said it here: 

On 12/10/2023 at 10:17, Rockets said:

...the long-term trend is that, even after the installation of masses of new infrastructure, cycling growth has stalled...

Will Norman and others have built the huge investment and disruption of cycle infrastructure on the back of a premise of "if we build it they will come" but can anyone see anything that they are coming in the numbers needed

...and here:

On 11/12/2021 at 00:46, Rockets said:

...a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers is all any set of measures will ever deliver and the collateral damage that goes with it does not justify it

...and here:

On 09/12/2021 at 15:57, Rockets said:

 Anyone who spends any time travelling around central London can see for themselves that there are congestion hotspots due to the provision of ever bigger and under-used cycle lanes.

...and here:

On 09/08/2023 at 16:07, Rockets said:

Just take a walk through town after morning rush hour and you will see little capacity of the bike lanes being used yet all the capacity of the reduced road space being used. It's a commuter peak and that's it.

Will Norman and the cycle lobby bigged up a tenfold increase in cycling that never materialised, they needed that to justify the investment and damage to other forms of transport but they have got nowhere near that and I hope some serious questions are being asked as to why.

Hope that helps.

Edited yesterday at 11:10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore? You can pluck quotes that I made over the years and as I explained - it was very much in context TFL data at the time of the post - you cannot deny that - look at what TFL said in their own annual reports - the facts are there in black and white - I am afraid you seem to be falling into old habits again - wildly swinging to try and land a punch but missing by a country mile. 

What I think is interesting is you seem far keener to dig out quotes from years ago (all of which were 100% correct when posted) to try to make a point rather than share your thoughts on why this year TFL's report claims a significant increase in cycle stages after years of stagnation and declines in the growth number yet the same report suggests Londoners are cycling less. I remind you in 23-24 report cycle stage growth was down year-on-year to 5% yet this year up to 12.7%.

Any ideas - let's see if you can keep the thread on track?

Meanwhile it is interesting that the London Assembly called a number of experts to their transport committee in September to try to understand why - despite TFL's Walkability Plan - there had been no growth in walking numbers in London since 2019 (and for context walking is by far the biggest modal share of any transport type in London) and TFL was repeatedly 800,000 journeys short of it's own targets....and do you know the one thing cited as a reason for the challenges -  the growth of micromobility - people are taking e-bikes and e-scooters to do perfectly walk-able journeys. 

Fascinating watch particularly the chap from the University of Westminster (Rachel Aldred's crew) who was on the panel and was squirming a bit when asked and he said all active travel is considered good in their mind when challenged on whether micromobility and cluttering was causing the stagnation in walking....https://webcasts.london.gov.uk/Assembly/Event/Index/1a7a64bf-3f4b-4ea2-99fc-4ff3725d477a

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah do you even know the point you are trying to make anymore? You can pluck quotes that I made over the years and as I explained - it was very much in context TFL data at the time of the post - you cannot deny that - look at what TFL said in their own annual reports - the facts are there in black and white - I am afraid you seem to be falling into old habits again - wildly swinging to try and land a punch but missing by a country mile. 

No, I'm simply answering the question you posed. You asked whether anyone had actually said that cycle lanes are some extravagant waste of time, and that cycling hasn't increased as a result.

The answer is yes. You have said that.

As DulvilleRes said, these stats really do put to bed some of that nonsense

[Penguin68]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

in the growth number yet the same report suggests Londoners are cycling less.

I may have got this wrong, but wasn't it that fewer households were cycling rather than overall there was less cycling happening? I think that's interesting, although I'd like to see the variance in both figures - given that they will be sample based - but it does suggest that the cycling 'habit' isn't now spreading, and that the expenditure on cycling infrastructure is not being utilised now by an increasing population of households, so the costs aren't being spread.

The great worry is that cycling, like hula hooping, was or is a passing fad. You could make a case (which is not what I'm doing here) that as people got bored with traditional human powered cycles and moved to electric, so they will bore of these and move to something else, which might not be transport related. 

Of course, there will always be hard core cyclists who will stay faithful. 

Edited yesterday at 11:12 by Penguin68

[Earl Aelfheah]

As soon as I started this thread, I knew Rockets would be here to downplay the data, or imply that it somehow shows bad value.. blah, blah. His responses across this section are effectively algorithmic - 'car v's bike - car good, bike bad'. I could write them before he does.

Edited yesterday at 12:07 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Penguin68 this is why I am interested in the opinions of others - this thread is about the headline stats which look good and have been repurposed as such by the OP but it is interesting that TFL's report, and subsequent headlines, always leans in on cycling - it is as if it is the only mode that matters - as if that is the only thing TFL and the Mayor really cares about - and seemingly the challenges of hitting their own walking targets suggest this may well be the case.

A more than doubling of cycle stage growth hasn't just come out of nowhere (especially after repeated years of growth decline) and I am interested to see what people think is the catalyst for this - I am not buying the infrastructure message - that seems more like grandstanding and I am surprised TFL has not backed-up their claims with more detail on where the growth is coming from. 

 

10 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As soon as I started this thread, I knew Rockets would be here to downplay the data, or imply that it somehow shows bad value.. blah, blah. The responses across this section are effectively algorithmic - 'car v's bike - car good, bike bad'. I could write them before he does.

@Earl Aelfheah you must stop jumping to such negative conclusions. I am not downplaying the data just asking if people know what is driving the large jump this year (after years of decline in cycling growth). Is that a question I am not allowed to ask? I would suggest that anyone who had read the TFL report (and not just the headlines from TFL's press release) would probably ask the same questions I am as there are clear contradictions within it - do you have any explanation?

[Earl Aelfheah]

45 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

The great worry is that cycling, like hula hooping, was or is a passing fad. You could make a case (which is not what I'm doing here) that as people got bored with traditional human powered cycles and moved to electric, so they will bore of these and move to something else, which might not be transport related. 

Eh? If you're not arguing that cycling might be replaced with another 'fad' that is not transport related (like hula hooping), why make the point? What does this mean?

30 minutes ago, Rockets said:

A more than doubling of cycle stage growth hasn't just come out of nowhere (especially after repeated years of growth decline) and I am interested to see what people think is the catalyst for this - I am not buying the infrastructure message

So you're not actually interested what people think is the catalyst then?

Edited yesterday at 11:56 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So you're not actually interested what people think is the catalyst then?

oh @Earl Aelfheah..........deary, deary me....you're on a roll today aren't you 😉