Why a Third Crossing is Wrong - We Try to Explain Electricity to a Cat

-------oo0oo-------

Our attention has been drawn to the "Why a Third Crossing is Wrong" blog at thirddoncrossing.wordpress.com, in which a community activist in Tillydrone logically sets out the reasons why Aberdeen City Council and their business-community sponsors are wrong to push ever onward with their antiquated proposals for a damaging new bridge (the "Third [sic - see below] Don Crossing") over the River Don at Tillydrone. This new motor-vehicle bridge, if built, would form part of the much larger grand project to build a new (but paradoxically, as we have explained, very old-fashioned) radial expressway in Aberdeen, pointing directly at the heart of the town centre. We've touched on some of the aspects of this new radial expressway once or twice before.

We admire the systematic and thoroughgoing approach demonstrated by the author of Why A Third Crossing is Wrong (let's call it "WTCW") - but of course, the damoclean situation which the Tillydrone (and wider Aberdeen) community finds itself in demands nothing other than all the rigour that can possibly be mobilised in opposition to this road and bridge project which will slice the community in two. The case against the building of this new road and bridge is set out logically and assiduously on the pages of WTCW and the perspicacity and professionalism of the content pages (which are in the form of submissions to the forthcoming public enquiry into the compulsory purchase orders associated with the scheme) does credit to the Tillydrone community. We congratulate the author of the WTCW blog and we recommend it to our readers: go and have a look. 

Being familiar with some of the issues surrounding the proposed Third Don Crossing, and after reading the WTCW blog, we were reminded of a recent piece on Copenhagenize in which motorists using a street through a community in Ferrara, Italy are referred to as parasites:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2011/11/parasites-and-living-lungs.html

<<<<<<<

What a great word. The host organism is, of course, the city off which they feed. The streets outside my flat as I write this are relatively free of parasites. The ones that plague Copenhagen aren't your traditional parasites. They aren't noctural. They desert their host organism on migratory patterns, scurrying back to their formicaries in the afternoons, only to return to feed upon their host in the morning. To continue their infestation and causing all manner of illnesses that the host organism is unable to defend itself against. 

Traffic pollution with its toxic emissions and noise pollution, a lower perception of safety for pedestrians and cyclists, traffic accidents that kill and maim, reduced property prices and so on. 

Parasites. It's a brilliant way to describe the motorists who roll down these streets, contributing nothing to the liveableness of my neighbourhood and others, hardly making a dent in the economic well-being of the shops, paying their taxes in other municipalities. Rumbling past, spouting the residue of their combusted fossil fuels behind them to the funky tunes on their radio while they text away on their telephones. 

>>>>>>>>>


WTDC says:

http://thirddoncrossing.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/34/

<<<<<<<

The academic consensus is that growth in car transport and road haulage mileage should be discouraged as it is not sustainable socially, environmentally and economically and that there should be a ‘modal shift’ to other sustainable forms. i.e. there should be a decoupling of road transport from economic growth.

I am not alone in interpreting that the root of the problem of congestion is the over dependence of the North East on car transport and this is evident by the fact that congestion in and around Aberdeen is not only confined to the Haudagain and Bridge Don ‘pinch points’. I consider that the development will perpetuate this condition by encouraging car usage resulting in more congestion and continuing the progressive marginalisation of sustainable transport alternatives.

Reading through the documentation so far is leading me to the conclusion that there is a bias in the interpretation of the studies leaning towards the conclusion for the need of a road traffic bridge. There appears to be over emphasis on the benefits, understatement of the consequences and the ignoring of alternatives.

>>>>>>>>>

OtherAberdeen's regular readers will of course know that our position is uncompromisingly against the use of motor-vehicles as a personal transport mode in the centre of Aberdeen (or any town centre). Policies which discourage cars in urban centres and reallocate roadspace away from motor traffic are mainstream throughout continental Europe and are being adopted even in the USA to the great benefit of local economic prospects and urban social profiles, but when we publish blog-posts demanding that similar policies be adopted here, we generally get a whole lot of quite nasty abuse. 

So… it's a tough nut to crack… Going hard at the technical aspects of specific projects, as WTCW does, and as RoadSense (for instance) are doing with regard to the forthcoming orbital motorway project (the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, or AWPR), is vital - for without these efforts and others like them, 'facts on the ground' would change rapidly and irreversibly, as road-building proposals are presented as plans, and plans are presented as faits accomplis. But it's troubling that efforts like these have to be made at all, for they are fighting a rearguard action against a democratic deficit. And as we have pointed out before, the current road-building obsession in Aberdeen is an atavistic desire for the realisation of plans which were first drawn up in the centre of the car-crazy twentieth century, before the externalities of motor-centric policies were understood. Car-dependency (or is it car-addiction? - so hard to tell the difference) as pointed out by WTCW is endemic in this part of the world.

We believe that the underlying problem lies in the mind-set of the polity here (just offering an opinion like that expressed in the previous sentence can provoke reams of abuse). It's a problem of framing, of context. We said, in the conclusion to our "Woonerf for the Denburn Valley" piece:

"…once our scheme is up and running … who would ever want to take their car all the way into the town centre ever again?"

And among the responses we got was one from someone who said:

"Yeah, exactly. That's the serious danger of schemes like these which remove road capacity". 

The point being that, here, in this town, in this area, more cars on more roads is ipso facto regarded as being the desirable outcome. This is the context - the frame - in which we try to make the case for sustainable and active transport. You might as well try to explain electricity to a cat. The framing, the prevailing mindset, makes the case for any alternative to motor-transport practically impossible to promulgate. For example, take the forthcoming "Berryden Corridor Improvements" [sic] project, which forms part of the same radial expressway as the Third Don Crossing. The use of that word 'improvements' is telling, for it is the consequence of an a priori assumption on behalf of planners that more cars on more roads in the city is a good thing. So the  use of that word 'improvements' can be seen as a political deployment of language; for who could credibly oppose something which is an 'improvement'? The questions that exercise us at OtherAberdeen are, firstly: Why is car-dependency endemic here? And secondly: What is to be done? What can be done to break the frame, change the context?

---§---

Why is car-dependency endemic here?

Historically and broadly-speaking, economic progress and improvements in living standards have been accompanied by an increase in car ownership and use. This is understandable. The affluent society, status displays, the growth of suburban living and commuting, the upgrade cycle, etc. All other things being equal (and in the absence of civic policies to discourage motoring) economic growth provokes more motoring; cause and effect. It appears that our policy-makers have got this back-ass forwards; mistaking cause for effect they now believe that more motoring on more roads is a primary cause of economic growth. This is a cargo cult.

OtherAberdeen has explored the impulse for hierarchical status-display through motoring and, while that's an effect that's evident everywhere in the UK, we feel that the extreme affluence of the upper percentiles of the Aberdeen population has a disproportionate psychological 'pull' effect on those 'below' them in the hierarchy, many of who mistake affluence for wealth and so cannot understand that aspiration is not the same thing as acquisition. "Aberdeen is Tycoon-town, / If you're not a tycoon yet, you will be soon." So, aping the transport choices of the hyper-affluent, the people of Aberdeen and its hinterland are delighted to put more cars on more roads, because to them it demonstrates that Aberdeen is a town on the up-and-up, a town that's going somewhere (even if that's only to the shops for a pint of milk).

Related to that upper-percentile affluence is, of course, the fact that the predominant industry round here is concerned with oil extraction. An acquaintance, defending his excessive motor-mileage said he was "supporting the local economy" by using so much petrol. He wasn't joking. But there's a bit more to it than that: Aside from the impacts upon urban liveability, aside from the detrimental personal and social effects of sedentary lifestyles, and aside from the impact on the perception of safety and desirability of switching to other transport modes, excessive motoring also contributes to climate change (motor transport causes about a quarter of UK carbon emissions). As motor transport and the oil extraction industry are critically co-dependent, so it is psychologically impossible for a motorist in Aberdeen to integrate the fact that motoring is harmful into his or her world view, for that is the same thing as acknowledging that our town's success (such as it is) is based upon that same globally harmful thing. If you want to get Aberdeen people to admit that motoring is harmful, you are asking them to admit that the North Sea oil industry is harmful, and that, by extension, Aberdeen itself is harmful. As Upton Sinclair (author of "Oil!" filmed as "There Will be Blood") said:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it!"

---§---

What is to be done?

We've mentioned that asking people in Aberdeen to switch to a mode of transport which is less amenable to hierarchical status displays is hard going.

http://otheraberdeen.blogspot.com/2011/10/carshare-no-dont-think-so.html

<<<<<<<

Having spent a lifetime on the upgrade cycle gathering those letters and numbers on the boot-lip of their car - those glyphs and cartouches which so shorthandedly signify their importance - to then tell them that it was all for nothing and that they must abandon these status-displays is to so undermine the foundations of their world-view that they cannot integrate it into reasonable discourse. You might as well tell them that everything they believe in and hold dear is demonstrably wrong, and that everything they think they have achieved and hope to go on to attain is just an illusion. It's like telling a toddler that Santa doesn't exist, and taking away their lollipop at the same time. The reaction you get is not good.

>>>>>>>>

In an ideal world, the fact that there is no 3rd Don Crossing would be seen as an opportunity. For instance, in both Oxford and Cambridge, high levels of active and sustainable transport are the norm. In Oxford's case, this was policy-driven. There it was decided in the 1970's that the urban environment in the town centre was simply too precious to expose to the detrimental effects of motor-traffic. Park-and-ride was pioneered in Oxford, but - crucially - it was accompanied by a moratorium on the creation of new parking spaces in the town centre. No new public car-parks, and - even more importantly - no employee carparks for businesses. While we have excellent P&R facilities for Aberdeen, they are fatally undermined by policies which continue to attract large numbers of motor journeys into the heart of the town.  Cambridge benefitted from a different dynamic; though, paradoxically, it was a lack of dynamism which has lead to today's happy outcome. In that town, civic neglect meant that they missed out on the late 20th century enthusiasm for inner-city ring-roads and radial expressways and the like. What turned out to be benign neglect meant none of that sort of motor-pandering infrastructure was installed, and - the ancient town centre being largely unsuitable for motor-traffic - the people of Cambridge took to bikes (or, rather, never got off them). Today, Cambridge has the highest modal share for cycling in the UK. It's worth emphasising that this is not the result of a specific pro-active-transport policy, but rather is the outcome of doing very little to encourage motoring.

////////////////////

But where does that leave the likes of us active-transport advocates in Aberdeen? In Aberdeen, it leaves us out on the edge; that's where. Sniping from the fringe, marginalised, a hated out-group, seen as dogs-in-mangers; anti-progress, anti-business, anti-Aberdeen. But, of course, we are none of those things.

Additionally, we are highly skeptical of the compromises offered by groups such as Get-About, and Aberdeen Cycle Forum - because what they ask is that sustainable and active transport be considered, be included in strategic plans which are largely about putting more cars on more roads. And they get exactly what they ask for - tokenistic half measures, afterthoughts and unsuitable infrastructure tacked onto major road-building projects. Where these groups fail is in their acceptance that active and sustainable travel is 'in addition to' business as usual, whereas, if campaigns for active and sustainable travel were successful, there would be significantly less pressure on existing road capacity, and calls for more roads would simply evaporate. For active and sustainable transport is not 'in addition to' business as usual - rather, it is 'instead of' business as usual. The policies of GetAbout and the like have failure built in, for they first acquiesce unquestionably to the a priori calls for more roads, and then seek to piggyback on that.

We note that Aberdeen City Council's plans for the Third Don Crossing bridge and its feeder roads include some tokenistic cycle paths, some of which are labeled as being 'segregated'. You'd think we'd be pleased, yes? Well we're not, because this labelling demonstrates that road-planners in this town have completely misunderstood what segregation of facilities for cycling should actually encompass. We couldn't put it any better than the Lo Fidelity Bicycle Club, so we'll leave it to them and their discussion of what "Going Dutch" would mean for UK cycling infrastructure:

http://lofidelitybicycleclub.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/misinterpreting-interpretations/

<<<<<<<<

The fact is that ‘Going Dutch’ does mean having segregation everywhere! But there’s one fundamental caveat; The British assume segregation to mean ‘segregating cyclists from the road to ’improve traffic flow’ for motorised traffic’ whereas the Dutch mean ‘segregate motorised vehicles from people to improve movement for everyone’.

Through the years, the British have created a lot of bypasses, relief roads, motorways, urban expressways and the like. The Dutch did the same but ensured that it became an utter pain in the buttocks to get across the town being bypassed in a car, in effect forcing motorised traffic to use the new infrastructure built. The British didn’t and are still paying the price with heavily congested town and city centres. In fact we keep using it as some perverse justification to build more bypasses, relief roads, motorways, urban expressways and the like.

>>>>>>>>

Here

Quite. Here, in Aberdeen, we have both plans for a new orbital motorway bypass and a new radial expressway (as well as other radial access 'improvements' for motor transport). Additionally, so great is the fear that the orbital motorway bypass road will reduce traffic flows into and through the town centre, that NESTRANS (the North East of Scotland Transport Partnership - a political/business quango) document "Optimising the Benefits of the AWPR" (pdf) includes specific provision for measures  to 'improve' radial flows of motor traffic towards and through the town centre. This is the direct polar opposite of the more modern transport planning we see in continental Europe (in particular Netherlands and Denmark) where, as the Lo Fidelity Bicycle Club point out, yes indeed they have bypasses and motorways and the like, but it is this infrastructure itself which forms the major plank of the segregation policy. 

Elsewhere

For these roads fulfil the policy of segregating cars from people, keeping motor-traffic flows away from where people want and need to be. And so, in this way, urban centres - centres for entertainment, residences, commerce and community - are allowed to fulfil their correct urban function as human-scale places for people, rather than machine-scale places for cars. Were our forthcoming orbital motorway bypass project to be accompanied by policies which would prevent radial flows of motor traffic into and through the centre of our town, there would be no greater advocates of it than we. But it is not, so we are not. 

Here

Incontrovertible evidence has been mounting for some time now, demonstrating beyond doubt that motor-centric policies to encourage ever-increasing numbers of motorcar journeys into the centres of towns are wrong. Wrong for the environment, wrong for personal health, wrong for the community and wrong for business sustainability. Indeed, we were delighted to notice that a raft of recent studies encompassing places as diverse as The Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Canada, Swizerland and the United States shows policies which cater for bicycle transport are better for local business than those which cater for motor transport.

http://thisbigcity.net/local-economic-implications-of-urban-bicycle-networks/

<<<<<<<

 ...a study from the Dutch city of Utrecht which found that whilst bicycle-based consumers spend less per transaction, they make more visits and spend the most collectively. This isn’t the only connection – a German study found similar results, calling cyclists ‘better customers’ due to them making eleven trips per month compared to seven for motorists. And the Swiss are in on it too, where research into parking space profitability found that each square metre of bicycle parking generated €7500 compared to €6625 for cars.

>>>>>

Elsewhere.

When will Aberdeen get the message? In the past, when they didn't know what else to do, physicians used to allow fevers to run high - kill or cure. Perhaps the motor-centric policies of Aberdeen - with our forthcoming orbital motorway, accompanied as it is by this new bridge and other access projects at Haudagain, 3rd Don Crossing, Bridge of Dee replacement, Berryden 'Improvements', and a great big new carpark where Union Terrace Gardens used to be are an attempt to provoke just such a crisis - for once these projects are complete, large volumes of high speed traffic will power unimpeded into the heart of our town, causing atrocious levels of noise and chemical pollution, heavy congestion and destroying liveability for the communities the expressways bisect. Once this crisis is upon us, policy will - must - inevitably shift, for there will be nowhere left for new roads to be built.

Or will there?

Tunnels Vision for Aberdeen Transport
(a must-read)

If we tolerate current plans, the risible nonsense of grandiloquent proposals for tunnels and monorails and god-knows-what-all will surely follow. For that reason, as well as everything else above, we wish the Tillydrone community and the author of Why a Third Crossing is Wrong every success in their resistance.

But finally, there is another reason why a "Third" Don Crossing is "wrong". For, having successfully framed the discourse - the promoters of this scheme have managed to get us all to use the name "Third Don crossing" when referring to it. But it is not - if this scheme goes ahead - this will be the sixth bridge over the Don in Aberdeen. Count them.

-------oo0oo-------

Ploughshares

As cycling advocates, we're always pleased to hear of any increase in cycling activity. We recently heard of an increase in the number of Grampian Police officers on bicycle patrol - splendid! Here they are along with former Transport and Climate Change minister 'Fatty' Stewart Stevenson:

Chief Superintendent Mark McLaren said:

"Being visible and accessible within our communities is important to us.

"We know that people like to see us out and about on pedal cycles as it creates opportunities for better engagement which is not always possible when officers are travelling in vehicles.

"The big advantage here of course is that our staff like to use the bikes too, so this is a bit of a win/win situation.

"This is a great opportunity for us as not only do the bikes offer health and environmental benefits, they also have the added advantage of being able to quickly get into areas that aren't always immediately accessible by cars."

In a related development, we recently noticed bicycle paramedics on speculative patrol in central London:

All good stuff. But what particularly caught our interest was the name of the supplier of these public service urban mountain-bikes. Monopolytastic Killingry-mongers Smith and Wesson! Here are the most common specifications of their police bikes:

The 'Smith and Wesson Tactical':

Developed with the experiance and input from officers, the 'Tactical' model delivers the performance and reliability necessary for any department.

The 'Smith and Wesson Perimiter':

An excellent entry level bike offering the same high frame build standard as the higher specification bikes. Ideally suited for patrolling or community policing.

Both specifications include "silent hubs" (for "stealth" cycling) and are available for "civilians" to purchase.

At first we revelled in the thought that this arms-manufacturing company was now engaged in making bikes. We delightedly thought it was an example of swords being beaten into ploughshares. But then we shook off our idealistic naivity and realised that it was, perhaps, an example of the exact opposite of that.

With the exercise of a little healthy perspicacity we learn that the bikes are, in fact, generic bikes of the sort which you'll have seen bike shops marketing under their own names. They are outsource-manufactured in a who-knows-where factory through an agency agreement controlled by the box-shifting US-based bike mass-marketer Cycle Force Group, with the Smith and Wesson brand being licensed for marketing purposes only.
Neither Smith & Wesson nor Cycle Force Group risk any of their real capital in this enterprise. It seems that, perhaps, police forces respond positively to the core-brand-values embodied in the Smith and Wesson trademark. We have also learned that Smith and Wesson have similarly entered into a licensing agreement with North Carolina based Wellco Enterprises for the design and distribution of a full line of 'tactical law enforcement' footwear.

From the jungles of Vietnam to the mountains of Afghanistan we have supplied our best and bravest with the innovations needed to prevail in the world's toughest conditions. Today this mission continues as we outfit those currently fighting overseas as well as those returning home to face new challenges. It's this commitment that spawned our credo: There and Back. No matter where the battle lines are drawn.

We can, perhaps, learn a little of the mindset of these bicycle and boot marketers via their use of such language. And we can also learn a little of the mindset of institutional procurement officers when we realise that the Smith & Wesson brand is the critical marketing lever which pulls the trigger of their buying decision.

Aberdeen Cycle Chic

Calm serenity and stylish composure begins to colonise the centre of Aberdeen as the number of motoring journeys fall to levels which allow young bohemian women to feel safe undertaking utility cycling journeys in the heart of the town, chic in their idiosyncratic clothing, unimpeded in the Advanced Stop Box and very 'Scotch' with the kilted piper skirling in the background.

Yeah, if only! Unfortunately, for the moment, this remains a slightly unusual sight. But it is one which we see more and more often. There is hope.

When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race.  ~H.G. Wells

Absurd Answer to Sedentary Lifestyle Problems

Not really a specifically 'Aberdeen' thing, but we regularly touch on issues of public health and transport, and when we do we are always at pains to point out that these issues are not separate.

So this BBC report made us laugh out loud this morning. We really did check that it wasn't April 1st.

'Pedal while we work' idea raised by scientists in US 

Mini exercise bikes could combine a desk job with a workout.

Portable pedal machines could be used in every office to improve the health of workers, according to scientists in the US.

Apparently, if desk-workers are provided with a pedal machine, they'll use it for about 23 minutes per day at their desks, and workers said they would use such a machine regularly if they were offered one.

A few years ago a similar idea was raised when an American obesity clinic developed a 'vertical workstation' which combined a desk with a treadmill. No, really.

Let's just re-iterate that: In order to improve public health, the promotors of these ideas really do
suggest that workers with sedentary lifestyles (who by definition do not use active transport modes to get to work) are offered a simulated form of active transport to exercise with once they arrive at their desks!

Amazing. These people have thought of everything they possibly could in order to avoid breaching the Golden Western Taboo: Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES Suggest That People Shouldn't Use The Car.

We iconoclasts at Other Aberdeen are very much in the business of breaching taboos, so we offer this alternative to these absurd 'solutions':

'Pedal or walk to work' idea raised by Other Aberdeen.

Walking or cycling to work could be used to improve the health of workers, according to Other Aberdeen. 

No shit, Sherlock. Walking is a perfectly viable transport choice for journeys less than 2 miles, cycling for journeys less than 8 or 10.

Edit:

We appreciate that some may have to travel farther than eight or ten miles, and so have to use the bus. We suggest that they consider getting on and off the bus a few stops farther away from their home and workplace.

And, as prompted by "Stinky" (who comments below), we acknowledge that for some 'the car' may appear to be the only option (though we would first suggest that these people re-evaluate the resilience and sustainability of their work/living arrangements). However, even those who cling to their cars (much as those in the American mid-west cling to their guns and bibles) could park up a couple of miles from their workplace and walk the rest of the way. Don't they realise this?

Simples! (As we've heard car-dependent people say repeatedly ad nauseam.)

Urban Dual Carriageways. The Future from the Past.

As our council continues pushing ahead with measures to "enhance" traffic flow at speed into the heart of the town centre to the exclusion of other transport options via the controversial "Berryden Corridor" (pdf) urban dual carriageway project, we continue to be nonplussed that such a discredited policy for traffic management continues to even be considered, let alone implemented.

It is telling that the report linked above is titled "Berryden Corridor Improvements", thus prejudicing it's own conclusions. That the creation of extra road-space exclusively for motor transport is an "improvement" is a conclusion which is increasingly seen as mistaken. We have written on this subject on one or two occasions before.

We so very much wish that it were true that congestion could be solved by the simple, seemingly common-sense expedient of building more roads. But, unfortunately, world-wide and decades-long experience of the building of relief-roads, bypasses and linkroads confirms without even a hint of doubt that it is not.

Note the "Proposed foot bridge over railway line".
Thanks for that.
As if this new pedestrian link will compensate for loss of
pedestrian permeability throughout the length of this new "corridor"
all the way from Woodside Fountain to Skene Square.

More and more, in every part of the world from Australia through Asia to Europe and even including the USA where the car is King, it is realised that more roads means more congestion and that the only thing which will reduce congestion is a policy which delivers fewer journeys undertaken by car.

It's a cliché and a truism to say that one of the definitions of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. So why do we expect that building additional road capacity will have a different effect this time? It will not; it will merely impoverish us by further devastating parts of our town which are already suffering blight and degeneration.

We are reminded of lessons unlearned elsewhere:

From Report on A highway Plan for Glasgow 1965.

These paper-bound utopian visions, unfortunately, turned into an alienating horror in the real world.

From At War With the Motorist's splendidly psychogeographically logged visit to Glasgow: Crap cycling and walking in car sick Glasgow.

Glasgow continues on to repeat the same errors with new urban motorway and dual carriageway projects. It seems that we in Aberdeen cannot bear to be left out. As one commenter puts it: "Why would anyone want to walk anywhere when they can drive through the remains of the city at 50mph." And another: "Worth every penny, so it is. Heaven forbid that anybody might have to go anywhere, anytime at less than a respectable 60mph."

Should the Berryden Corridor urban dual carriageway be built as proposed, it will fulfil one function only - it will bring more motor traffic into the centre of town at an increased speed. From this function, effects flow: It will increase congestion; it will increase noise and atmospheric pollution; it will act as a barrier to east-west permeability and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists; it will isolate communities and it will have a detrimental impact upon the liveability of the inner part of our town north of the centre. It will thus increase social exclusion and alienation. This is the direct opposite of the study aims which, in the very first paragraph state that the project will "contribute to making Aberdeen’s transport network more efficient and sustainable over the coming years, ensuring that the city remains an attractive place to live, visit and work."


In the past, we have praised Aberdeen's surprisingly good cycling profile and we regularly revel in it's fantastic network of quiet and serene pedestrian paths which take walkers away from the stress of interacting with motor traffic.

We'd hate to have to reverse our position on this, particularly when our non-car infrastructure is beginning to gain International Fame.

Shock Traffic News

Despite our promise not to read local newspaper The Press and Journal (as it often winds us up a bit too much) our attention has been drawn to this encouraging report:

Traffic on Major City Routes at Lowest Level.

Quite quiet on the A956 Inner City Ring-Road.
If this ringroad is so quiet, why do they think they need another one?

Apparently, motor traffic on some of the town's strategic road network has fallen to levels not seen since the early 1990's. We're delighted by this, and not entirely surprised. We have mentioned in the past how Aberdeen is a surprisingly good place to cycle, and every day we seem to see more and more cyclists on the town's roads, an impression confirmed by official figures.

Maybe we'll start an "Aberdeen Cycle Chic" blog.
Like Copenhagen Cycle Chic.

We were also unsurprised to see that some of the commenters who have posted their thoughts at the bottom of the report's web page are in denial about these figures (they are suffering from the paradox of rising expectations). They believe that buses cause congestion, and call for the abolition of bus lanes. Gave us a good laugh, that did. 

The P&J's report is correct to mention the growth in cycling and train use as being instrumental in the drop in traffic levels from their previously problematical and harmful levels (although they are, of course, still far to high). But they have failed to notice that many people actually use walking as a great, low cost, low carbon, healthy way of getting around. We've seen them, the flâneurs, appropriately and stylishly dressed, their boots were made for walking - and for cutting a dash around town. They walk the city in order to experience it. We are these people, we can all be these people.
Join us.

"Undertaking a key role in understanding, participating in
and portraying the city."

International Standard Cycle Infrastructure.

We were delighted when the creators of Copenhagen Cycle Chic gave us a mention on their "Copenhagenize" blog, which agitates for the building of better bicycle cultures internationally. Hey, Aberdeen cycling's now on the map!

Hardcore fixie!

We love Copenhagen Cycle Chic, and hope one day to institute Aberdeen Cycle Chic.

Woonerf!

The principals of filtered permeability and shared space for transport corridors and thoroughfares are ideas which were pioneered in Groningen and other towns in the Netherlands, Flanders and Germany to encourage walking and cycling by giving them a more attractive environment free from traffic and a time and convenience advantage over car driving.

The Dutch call the shared space concept "woonerf", a term increasingly used in the English-speaking world to mean an area where motorists have priority equal to or lesser than other road-users, thus increasing the livability of the city at the human scale, even as residential density increases.

These measures were pioneered in Groningen in response to severe city-centre congestion which reached a gridlocked crisis point in the 1970's. Until that time the Netherlands - now known as the number one cycling country - actually had fewer regular cyclists than the UK. Amazing.

Here's a woonerf in Bergen-an-Zee in Holland.

Amazingly, we found a woonerf in Aberdeen!

But it's not for the likes of you. It's in Rubislaw Den.

The A to Z of Aberdeen - C

C is for Cycling

"No, no... There's no way... Oh no, ye canna cycle in Aiberdeen!"

A mere handful of years ago, in a taxi on our way to pick up some newly-bought hybrid bikes, those were the self-congratulatory and dismissive words bursting incredulously from the mouth of our taxi-driver; our own personal private-hire knight-of-the road.

As we all know, taxi drivers have a proprietorial attitude to the public highway, so we thought he was likely to know what he was speaking about!

Truth was, at the time, we kinda agreed with him. We were well aware that motorists generally regard speed limits as advisory in this town; we knew that gridlock and traffic volumes cause the city to grid to a halt twice a day; and we were cognisant of the fact that cyclists who use the road are regarded as the lowest of the low - hated by all other road users.

But we thought that this didn't apply to us, as we'd only intended to use the Old Deeside Line for our cycling - not to go anywhere or do anything (don't be silly!) - just to keep up a level of fitness.

How little we knew! And how little our taxi-driving knight-of-the-road knew!

As it turns out Aberdeen is one of the best possible places to cycle. A cross-town cyclist, starting from, say Pitmuxton (close to Broomhill Primary) going to Kittybrewster (say, the Nothern Hotel) can easily beat (by up to a half) the time taken by any motorised transport for the same point-to-point, and with no parking-space-hunting or charges!

As time goes on, we see that cycle routes begin to join up as 'missing links' are sewn together; roads which are forbidden to motorised transport open up as 'bypass' routes for pedestrians and cyclists; one way systems are declared 2-way for cyclists and special interest groups get their voices heard by local and national governments, resulting in increasing ring-fenced funding for 'cycling, walking and safer streets' budgets.

Brand-new 'missing link' connects

Old Switchback, Westhill Cycle Route,

Hazlehead Paths, Kingswells Paths and

Fernhill Paths. Phew.

(Not sure about the 'pushmepullu' bike, though)

Fernilea Road - closed to motors, but a 'bypass' for cyclists and pedestrains.

Connects Rubislaw with Summerhill.

Additionally, the potholes caused by the very harsh '09-'10 winter have prompted the closure of some roads to motor traffic. That needn't worry us cyclists (as long as we've got a suitable bike)

The weather has been a kind of Dr Beeching for roads

It's as if there's a kind of parallel Aberdeen just for cyclists and pedestrians; a city which bypasses the world of those who like to spend their time tied to a chair in a locked hot metal box. A city which is at right angles to - over, under and through - the Aberdeen which they think they know. The Aberdeen Cycle Map has recently been published in an updated revision which shows all the recent developments in our favour. The networks are extensive - spreading like the branches of a forest, linking up and intertwining as transport nodes increasingly interconnect.

All over the west end.

Thing is, cycling's a bit like a drug - it leads on to harder things and suddenly we find ourselves cosulting the council's 'Core Paths' maps and noticing that routes around the city expand further still for cyclists who use mountain bikes. Now, it's possible to cycle from Pitfodels to Dyce via Hazlehead and Fernhill all off-road. Indeed, it's now possible to cycle from Banchory to Aberdeen, cross the city, and continue on to Ellon, Auchnagatt and Fraserburgh all on routes dedicated to cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians.

Bucksburn Valley

So, as those who choose to be motorists grind their teeth in the gridlock, tied to their chairs in their hot locked metal boxes, we cyclists enjoy rapid transit across what feels like an altogether different city. A human-scale city; a city of freedom and fitness and fun, a town where we can go where we please - free of charge and freed from care.

You see, motoring compresses the consciousness, and anaesthetises the soul. It disconnects the driver from the town being crossed.

By contrast, cycling expands the consciousness and re-connects us with our city - as more and more people are finding out. Government stats show a near-doubling in cycle commuting in Aberdeen since 2007, second only to Edinburgh for cycling as a choice of way to travel to work in a city. No surprise - when it looks like this:

Off-road route at Airyhall.

Off-road route at Kingswells

Mortal Terror on the National Cycle Network

To celebrate 15 years of the National Cycle Network, Sustrans have launched a video competition "What does the National Cycle Network mean to you?"

Here is my entry:

Fantastic cycling in Aberdeen!

More and more, facilities and routes are coming together for cyclists in and around Aberdeen.

One Summer Evening on the Old Deeside Line

As the rush-hour motorists grind their teeth in gridlock on Garthdee Road, Anderson Drive, Inchgarth Road and Great Western Road, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders enjoy rapid yet leisurely transit through the western suburbs on the disused railway line path.

Nothing exciting or dramatic happens in this vid. It's just pleasant.