Thursday, 12 November 2015

They're not all hipsters. The demographics of cycling in Hackney 2

The cycle bloggers (and some academics and journalists) would have us believe that the fact that Hackney has succeeded in getting more residents to cycle than any other borough (by a long way) is down, in large part, to the demographics of the borough. They suggest it's a function of the number of 'hipsters' living in the borough. That this claim is made about one of the most diverse local authority areas in the UK is simply lazy and wrong.

In my view large numbers of people cycle in Hackney because Hackney has consistently applied policies ( that might work and are respectful of the other sustainable modes.

There is no Census category of 'hipster'. The interesting  demographic groups in the Census when considering cycling are ethnicity, socio-economic class and age ( Looking through the prism of these Census groupings, if the high levels of cycling were down to demographics alone, then Hackney would be characterised by higher numbers of white residents, more residents in lower managerial occupations and more residents aged 30 to 44 than other boroughs.

Below is an analysis of Census 2011 that charts these demographic aspects as they compare to two other boroughs. I have compared Hackney (15.4% cycle to work) against Islington (10.1% cycle to work) and Hammersmith and Fulham (5.1%). Islington has the next highest cycling rate in the Census and Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) is higher than many boroughs and does well in realising its cycling potential. Below is a comparison of the above three Census categories by borough. 

Is the population of Hackney characterised by those ethnicities who cycle most?

White British (and other white) categories cycle most in all three boroughs. The margin between these ethnic groups and others is considerable. Therefore if Hackney's high cycling level resulted from the demographics of the Borough, the population would be expected to have a higher proportion of white residents and fewer black residents, who cycle least.

In fact the data shows that Hackney has a much lower proportion of those ethnicities which are most likely to cycle.

Hackney has only 54.7% white residents (those most likely to cycle) compared to Islington at 68.2% and H&F at 68.1%. It has a much greater proportion of the ethnicity least likely to cycle.

Does Hackney have a greater number in the socio-economic class that cycles proportionately more?

People in 'lower managerial, administrative and professional' occupations are the group who cycle most in all three boroughs. If Hackney's high cycling level resulted from the Borough demographics it would tend to suggest that the Borough had higher numbers of residents employed in these jobs.

A comparison of this Census category by borough shows that  Hackney has a lower proportion of the socio-economic classes most likely to cycle than the other two Boroughs.

Only 24.7% of its residents are in the socio-economic class 'lower managerial' compared to Islington at 25.7% and H&F at 27.9%. It also has a greater proportion of residents in 'routine occupations' which is the group that is least likely to cycle.

Does Hackney have a greater number of those in the age range that cycles most?

In all three boroughs people aged between 30 and 44 cycle significantly more than any other age range. If Hackney's high cycling level was a function of demographics one would expect Hackney to have more residents in this age band than the other two comparator Boroughs.

Below is a comparison of the age range that has the highest proportions cycling by borough. It shows that all three Boroughs have about the same proportion of those ages most likely to cycle.

Hackney has same proportion of residents aged 30-44 as Islington at 27.9% with H&F at 29%.


It seems clear that Hackney has i) a lower proportion of the ethnic categories that cycle most and a higher proportion of the ethnic categories that cycle least, ii) a lower proportion of the socio-economic classes that cycle most and a higher proportion of those that cycle least iii) a similar proportion of residents in the age bracket that cycle most; compared to boroughs with lower cycling rates.

This demonstrates that back when the Census was taken and gentrification less evident there was a much higher cycling rate in Hackney. And it is not simply a function of its demography. The high levels of cycling have been undoubtedly influenced by the policies of the borough. Policies that have made Hackney a better place to cycle, restrained private motoring, and positively encouraged cycling.


Some people seem absolutely determined to belittle and undermine what Hackney has achieved. When you posit answers to what they propose in relation to demographics (high levels of cycling are caused by hipsters), they shift ground to say that the reason for so much cycling must be the geography, topography or lack of a tube. None of those can account for the fact that Hackney:
- has the highest level of cycling in London 
- AND has increased the rate more that any other in the UK, (by 125% between Census 2001 and 2011)

Comparisons with other high performing boroughs shows this.

Saturday, 24 October 2015

Who cycles? The demographics of cycling in Hackney

Guardian journalists are publicly debating the issue of socio-economic class, culture and the propensity to cycle. This is good as understanding these things should have a beneficial impact on policy development.

The cycle bloggers (and some academics and journalists) would have us believe that the matter of those who do and do not cycle is one-dimensional. They say that the main thing that prevents people from cycling is fear of road traffic linked to feelings of personal safety. However the picture below suggests that the picture is more complicated.

Below are some of the statistics relating to cycling. The information comes from three sources. Firstly Census 2011. The Census is a good data source because it cannot be manipulated, participation is mandatory and, unlike many cycling surveys that are promulgated, it shows how people actually travel, not how they 'say' they might travel. The other authoritative surveys are Transport for London's Travel Demand Survey and Transport for London's analysis of cycling potential (the number of journeys that might be cycled).

Note also that there is academic research which suggests that Census figures are a good proxy for cycling statistics generally.

If you cycle in London you will probably live in inner London

Census 2011 found that 7.2% of commuters in inner London cycled to work compared to 2.3% overall. Hackney has the highest level of cycling commuters of any London borough, double the inner London average, at 15.4% and much higher than the next highest borough, Islington, at 10.1%.

Transport for London's survey, the London Travel Demand Survey reports 7% of all journeys (not just commuting journeys) are undertaken by cycle in Hackney. TfL's analysis of cycling potential indicates that Hackney has been particularly effective in realising its' cycling potential with 24% of cycleable journeys actually being cycled, almost 10% higher than the next borough (Hammersmith and Fulham).

However, if you live in Harrow you almost certainly won't cycle to work. Only 869 (or 0.8%) of residents do so.

If you cycle in Hackney you'll probably be white British

Further analysis of Census 2011 shows the importance of culture and socio-economic class.  21.6% of white British commuters cycle, 4.3% of black commuters do. This means 61% of those residents of Hackney who cycle to work are white British (if 'other white' Census categories are included, the figure rises to 85%). 

Note also from the graph below that the Census category of Black/African/Caribbean/Black British people are major users of the bus.

If you cycle in Hackney you'll probably have a white collar job

The Census reports socio-economic classifications against method of travel to work. Higher professional occupations are hugely over-represented in the cycling figures. 

22.5% of those in higher professional occupations cycle to work. In comparison 7.1% (a third) of those in semi-routine occupations do. 63% 
of those residents of Hackney who cycle to work are in managerial, administrative or professional occupations.

If you cycle in Hackney you'll probably be aged 30 to 34

20.6% of those aged between 30 and 34 cycle to work. Only 9.9% of those between 20 and 24 years do. 55% of those residents of Hackney that cycle to work are aged between 25 and 34 years old.

If you cycle in Hackney you'll probably be male, but are more likely to be female than in any other London borough

In countries where cycling is much more prevalent there is close to parity in cycling rates between the genders. Although it is some way off parity, Hackney is significantly better than the inner London average. 

Cambridge in particular does well both in terms of levels of cycling and gender balance.


If you cycle in London you will probably live in inner London. If you are a Hackney resident you will probably be white; have a managerial, administrative or professional occupation; and be a 25 to 34 year old male. 

The absolute figures for ethnicity are telling: of the 16,411 who cycle to work in Hackney the Office of National Statistics classify 13,875 (85%) as 'White'. This is in the context of a resident population of 246,270 in one of the most diverse boroughs in the UK with a walking share of all trips at 37%; bus trips at 26% (the highest in the UK) and cycle trips of 7%.

The cycle bloggers would have us believe that everyone wants to cycle and the single thing that would make people cycle would be to introduce separated cycle tracks, bus stop bypasses and associated junction treatments to our streets. They say this course of action should be pursued, whatever the cost and regardless of detriment to others (in particular people walking and those using the bus). The argument is that it is largely fear of motor vehicles that puts non-cyclists off from cycling.

This cannot be true. Is the proposition that fear is behind the five fold difference in cycling rates of 21% to 4.3% of two different ethnic groups really plausible? Similarly can anyone truly believe that it is fear of motor traffic alone that means that one socio-economic group cycles at a rate of 22.5% and another at 7.1%? The differing rates between different age groups are clearly also worthy of more analysis and consideration.

Although road safety fears will be a reason why people choose not to cycle it simply cannot be the only reason. More sophistication is needed if the right mix of policies are to be pursued so as to genuinely encourage a broader range of people to cycle. The vogue for segregated tracks on relatively narrow roads seems to additionally privilege an already privileged group - by giving this group dedicated street space. This space is given to the detriment of walkers and bus users, and walking and buses are the most space efficient modes of transport. After all, not all may wish to cycle and many may simply want to get on the bus and read a book!

Sunday, 13 September 2015

Place is as important as movement: a tale of two high streets

As mayor Johnson's Cycle Superhighway proposals progress the look, feel and operation of these schemes as they affect the first busy high street is becoming clearer. Why this matters is that in London, as in many major cities, 80% of public space - space that is available for all the public to use - is not in parks or anything that is specifically set aside, but rather is public highway - our streets. 

For too long it had been assumed that the only function of streets was to be movement corridors, and that too primarily for motor vehicles. However, in the early noughties, in London, that assumption began to be questioned, and practical changes made to the way streets were thought about. Architect Richard Rogers was commissioned by the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to promote urbanism and Jan Gehl (the world's foremost urbanist) was commissioned by the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone to report how London might be made into a more walkable city with better public spaces that were pleasant to walk through or linger in. As an early exemplar, Kensington High Street became an icon for good street design.

The regeneration of Kensington High Street changed how we looked at our streets - 'place' became as important as movement.
The more progressive local authorities followed the example of Kensington High Street. They cleared the clutter on the streets and footways, so that pedestrians did not have to dodge around obstructions of all sorts, they widened pavements, introduced single-stage pedestrian crossings and used high quality paving. They recognised that creating streets and places where people wanted to be was as important as seeking ever more effective movement corridors. It became increasingly clear that segregating pedestrians from motor traffic by using pedestrian guardrail and other devices detracted from the look and feel of the street and moreover made the streets no safer, from a road safety point of view.

London's high streets are used by almost all Londoners and visitors to shop, travel, enjoy and just watch the world go by, London's high streets are some of its most important places. They are, to use Gehl's terms, public places for public life. We should be mindful that our high streets are a vital part of London life and continue to improve them if we are to live together in ever higher numbers in our city.

However, creating movement corridors for cycling has emerged as a new priority and we are at risk of forgetting how important great streets are. The cycle bloggers, cycle safety campaigners and friendly cycling journos have promoted a world view in which liveability has come to mean cycleability, and a particular form of cycleability, (characterised by kerbs and physical segregation) at that.

Whitechapel High Street is the first of London's High Streets to get the full separated cycle track treatment which some campaigners claim is the only way to make cycling safe and attractive. It is therefore interesting to look at Whitechapel as London's first busy high street cycle superhighway starts to appear. The approach to Whitechapel High Street contrasts with the approach to the development of Dalston's Kingsland High Street nearby. In the latter case developed primarily to regenerate Dalston and improve it as a 'place', as well as being one that is safer for all users of our streets and modes of transport.

Kingsland High Street, Dalston

Dalston's Kingsland High Street is a thriving shopping street by day and one of London's most important (and coolest) night time economy destinations. It's a busy bus corridor and arterial road into central London. It was regenerated only a few years ago to give the street an uplift. Whilst nominally a TfL road, the borough, Hackney, and the local cycling group had a great influence on its redesign.

Kingsland High Street performs multiple function including being a great place to eat and cycle.
It is now still a busy motor vehicle street and an important bus corridor, but the balance between movement and place has been tilted in the direction of its 'place' function. The pavements have been widened, paving material improved, clutter removed along with the removal of the central white line. Its now a more pleasurable street for people to visit, shop, linger and enjoy. Like Kensington High Street before it is an exemplar streets scheme that attracts professionals to visit. It is regarded as a good cycling environment by the local cycling group - the lane width is wide enough (4.5 metres) for cycle to safely pass bus and bus pass cycle. Formal pedestrian crossings are provided for, while informal crossing is also easy. 

Informal crossing is easy. Removing the central white line is known to slow vehicles.

It's not perfect, it is congested sometimes. But it is a fine approach to a busy high street recognising the multiplicity of needs and functions that a high street fulfils, and enables all people and functions to rub along together with a degree of equity. It teems with cyclists, the pavements are crowded with pedestrians and it works as a vibrant London street and most importantly it is a place people want to visit both by day and by night. 

Whitechapel High Street

Like Kingsland High Road, Whitechapel High Street is also a busy bus corridor and arterial road into central London and most importantly, is also the local high street, with the diverse mix of shops that should be found in any thriving high street environment. However encouraged by the cycle bloggers, some cycle campaigners and journalists, it is having a kerb separated cycle superhighway inserted along its entire length. The argument that holds sway at present is that in order to encourage more cycling, regarded as a public good, kerb separated cycle tracks are the only way to make potential new cyclists 'feel' safe - called subjective safety by the cycle bloggers.

Whitechapel High Street will remain a busy street, dominated by motor vehicles, with London's busiest bus services using it. Unlike at Dalston the balance between movement and place has been tilted further in the direction of movement. Pavements have been narrowed, reduced to 6 feet (narrower than many residential streets) along some sections where there is a huge amount of pedestrian movement. And it is the first busy street in London in which cycles are routed around the back of newly installed bus stops - so that cyclists cycle between the pavement and those getting on and off the bus. These so-called bus stop bypasses are designed to facilitate high speed cycling with cycle priority, so that cyclists do not need to slow down, nor need to overtake a bus which has paused to pick up passengers. Visually impaired pedestrians and passengers will be most disadvantaged.

Cyclists dip into the cycle lane depending on traffic conditions. Some use the new lane, others prefer to stick to the cariageway. All maintain their speed.

The bus lanes have been retained, but off-peak parking within the bus lanes will mean slower bus journeys and more congestion off-peak. There is less space on the street now to stop or linger and enjoy the street. Informal crossing of the street is made more difficult because of multiple additional raised kerbs on which one must perch before crossing. Wheelchair users, buggy pushers, luggage pullers and cycle pushers can no longer informally cross the street without having to navigate these additional obstructions. 

A new breed of pedestrian is developing on Whitechapel High Street - the percher, pusher-througher and up-and-over-mum

Some clutter has been removed as part of the scheme, but some has been added in the form of plastic bollards, coloured paint and traffic islands introduced into the carriageway

Poles have been removed and poles have been added

In conclusion

The cycle bloggers, some campaigners and friendly journalists have changed London's streets policies and successfully demanded kerb separated cycle tracks. They claim that more people would cycle in safety and this would improve our streets.  The first of these tracks, along a busy London high street, is being built at Whitechapel. The kerbs detract from the look, feel and utility of our streets for other users. The main losers are users of other sustainable transport modes - the pedestrian and the bus passenger. The usable space available to pedestrians has been reduced. Boarding and alighting the bus now means dodging cycles travelling at speed around the back of bus stops. The consequences for those with businesses on Whitechapel High Street remain to be measured, but the street is being made a less pleasant environment in which to linger - so it is conceivable that fewer people will visit to shop. 

The introduction of segregated facilities may attract more commuting cyclists, but won't achieve its other expressed objectives - namely use by 8 to 80 year olds, not clad in lycra, and a reduced casualty rate. Tilting the balance further in favour of movement (primarily high speed cycle commuting)  will not attract more, slower cyclists who will visit, use the shops and just linger. Improving all of the sustainable modes and improving public transport, cycling and walking and creating great London streets is an objective we shouldn't retreat from. Only time will tell whether these changes will result in lower casualty rates. In the meantime, life is made less convenient for the myriad other users of streets. For my money Kingsland High Street beats Whitechapel High Street hands down!

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Wick Road two-way

Anyone who knows the Victoria Park and Hackney Wick area to the east of Hackney knows that there are transport and access issues. Many of these issues are down to the installation of a one-way system in the 60s, one of many introduced at that time which were introduced to increase the motor vehicle capacity. The following is a summary of the problems for sustainable transport and road safety created by the numerous one-way streets. None of these problems are trivial given the scale of this mega-one-way system.

  • It's really difficult to understand the bus services. No one who is not a daily passenger could easily figure out the bus routes as they crisis-cross the area on one-way streets. Bus passengers will often not be able to get to their transport objectives.
  • It's really difficult to get to where you want to get to on your cycle without taking to the pavement to travel the wrong way up the one-way streets. The council has even permitted cycling on the Victoria Park Road pavement, a footway which is not even wide enough for pedestrians let alone cycles as well.
  • One-way streets encourage drivers to put their foot down because it's assumed nothing is coming the other way. We know that one-way streets have higher crash histories because of this increased speed and because pedestrians mistake the direction of travel and look the wrong way. Wick Road is so hostile to pedestrians they avoid the area.
  • To avoid the one-ways motor traffic rat runs through numerous unsuitable streets.
These issues have to be resolved for the benefit of local journeys and also because there is a  strategic need to regenerate Hackney Wick and the Olympic Park but it is important to prevent regeneration and development in those areas translating into car-dependent development. 

For more than a decade councillors have been pressing Hackney Council to revert the roads in the Victoria Park area to two-way operation. Local councillors and many others have recognised that the Victoria area one-way system blights a wide area. Transport for London has an historic aspiration to run buses two-way, at least on some of the streets and the Hackney Cycling Campaign campaigned at the last local elections for a plan to revert the one-way roads to two-way.

Hackney council has now, finally, proposed the reversion of Wick Road to two-way operation. This is fantastic after years of effort because it starts to unravel the one-way system and deal with many of the access issues mentioned above. It won't give everyone exactly what they want, but it will give many bus passengers a more direct service and a better prospect of extension of services to Stratford. It doesn't sort out all the one-way roads but it does make a start at sorting out the system and will allow many more direct cycle trips avoiding pavement cycling or a long detour. It slows the traffic and provides better crossing points for pedestrians. It improves access to Hackney Wick and the Olympic Park and will mean less car-dependent development in the future.  This scheme should be seen as a multi-modal, area-wide proposal. Its not just a single-mode scheme. I would urge everyone to support the principle of the proposals and comment on the detail at:

Sunday, 29 March 2015

Cycle Superhighway 1 through Hackney


Hackney is the most successful cycling borough in the UK. This is because it has taken an holistic approach to cycling, walking and the public realm whilst recognising the crucial role of mass transit - the bus. As Jan Gehl describes it, Hackney seeks to create a better balance between pedestrians, cycles and motor vehicles. Uniquely in the UK, Hackney has more commuters who cycle than travel by car!

Over the years, with its local cycling community, Hackney has sought to bend funding pots to best effect. Route based funding has been used for schemes which improve cycling, of course, but also benefit local pedestrians and create a better public realm. The Pitfield Street roundabout scheme (on CS1) is the best example. The changes there were entirely driven by the cycling community, but benefits accrued to local residents and pedestrians as well as to people who cycle.

The Pitfield roundabout has been transformed into a crossroads benefitting both cyclists and pedestrians.
A route-based approach is limiting, when streets are better regarded as a network

Drawing lines on maps, declaring them cycle routes and investing heavily along the route seems to capture the imagination of cycle planners and some campaigners, even though hardly anyone cycles such a route from end to end. Some of the investment that comes from such route-based planning will be good cycling value for money. However, instead of spending all this money on CS1, there are numerous other locations in the borough where investment would have been better directed. Improving these other locations, rather than using a large pot to titivate, and not substantially make things better for people cycling would certainly be better value for money, in terms of improvements to cycling.

In Hackney, in contrast to the route-based approach, the most innovative recent work has been the creation of a Bikeability map which assesses all of the borough's streets, regarding them as a network. Incrementally improving this network, particularly where there are historic clusters of collisions, will provide the best value for limited cycle and road safety funding. Sometimes improvements may be made opportunistically.

Hackney's Bikebility map - cyclists want to use all Hackney's Streets

The proposals have many positive elements

Nevertheless, Hackney Council has to be congratulated for getting so much value from the Cycle Superhighway process. There are some great schemes that have been developed as part of the process. For example, Hackney Cycling has campaigned for a generation to close Pitfield Street to through traffic and it seems this may now happen. This section of the scheme also has potential for a new public space. Secondly, the Boleyn Road / Crossway junction is to get signalised pedestrian crossings. In addition, there will be two other useful road closures which will reduce rat running through residential streets, to the benefit of both cyclists and pedestrians. There are also many side road entry treatments, improvements to junctions and traffic calming that is all welcome along with the resurfacing of the route.  

All of the three proposed road closure are beneficial to cyclists and pedestrians but exactly where the point closures are implemented is important. Point closure (or filtered permeability) is an area wide intervention, which affects the network. It isn't just one to provide a traffic free route. An example can be seen at Palatine Road where one closure has transformed the entire area east of Stoke Newington High Street. Road closures should be introduced away from a junction in order that drivers treat the junction with the same level of care as they would do a traditional junction.

Elements in need of improvement - including Old Street/Great Eastern Street and Balls Pond Road

Two locations need reconsideration. The most important of these is the crossing of Old Street and Great Eastern Street. At present there is significant pedestrian, cyclist conflict as cyclists weave their way across the pavement. Although it is not an easy location the pedestrian, cyclist conflict needs resolving. The scheme as proposed does not resolve this conflict. The scheme as presented also makes the right turn from Pitfield Street onto Old Street more problematic than it is at present, as the scheme primarily favours north to south cycle movement. The scheme also removes a useful cycle facility - a westbound bus lane from Old Street.

The junction layout below would be simpler, more self-explanatory and generally a more understandable road layout (and therefore safer) than either the present or proposed configuration.  My suggested configuration below could possibly allow pedestrian crossings along pedestrian desire lines.

The safest road layouts are understandable and self-explaining.

The second location with a poor scheme proposed is on Balls Pond Road. Balls Pond Road is one of the UK's busiest bus corridors. As east London develops over the next 20 years, this corridor will become even busier. Therefore proposals to signalise a side road junction, remove the bus lane and narrow the effective lane widths is an approach that is damagingly  casual with London's bus priority network. The measures proposed will inevitably introduce delay and unreliability to bus journeys not just on this section of route, but for passengers along the entire route.

Both of the Balls Pond Road proposals prioritise north to south cycle journeys over east to west cycle journeys! The separated cycle track proposal moves the existing pedestrian crossing and will inhibit informal pedestrian crossing by the introduction of kerbs into the carriageway. With the exception of making the bus lane operational 24/7 (with loading allowed), adding side road entry treatments at the two junctions and enforcing the 20mph limit, by camera, doing nothing at this location would be the best all round solution.


In conclusion Cycle Superhighway 1 through Hackney is a good thing overall, however as discussed, it is a lot of money to put into a route-based scheme, rather than considering the network as a whole. The proposals for CS1 would benefit from reconsideration of the crossing of Old Street and Great Eastern Street as this is the most important location of the entire scheme. The proposal at Balls Pond Road is too narrowly focussed on north to south cycle movements and substantially disadvantages all other users including people cycling East West. The point closures should be moved into the centre of the area to be filtered, and away from the junctions.

Tuesday, 8 October 2013


Hackney has been branded the Capital of Cycling. The recent All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group report noted Hackney's "extraordinary progress".  However, whilst recognising what Hackney has achieved, some bloggers and cycling campaigners, mostly outside Hackney, say that Hackney must nevertheless change. It should not continue to pursue the policies which have contributed to this progress: road danger reduction, speed management, public realm improvement and permeability for cycles amongst others.

They promote a strategy of 'Going Dutch' with dedicated space for cyclists being introduced along Hackney's busiest streets. Surely, proponents of separated cycle tracks say, if you give cyclists a protected lane they will feel safer and more of them will cycle. They say it has had an effect in Holland; Holland has a lot of cyclists. Quod erat demonstrandum.  

However it is not happenstance that has led to the adoption of policies in Hackney to incrementally create a better balance between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles; permeability for cycles; speed management and road danger reduction. These are pragmatic policies for a borough which regards cycling as important, but also wants to see more walking, great streets and great public spaces and has a huge proportion of its residents who are reliant on numerous, good bus services. In these multiple aims, Hackney is supported by its organised cycling community who also recognise that a liveable borough is not just about cycling.

Space for buses
Almost 50 bus services operate on Hackney's streets (more than in the whole of Amsterdam). Many carry more passengers than some light rail systems. The bus is, and will continue to be, the number one public transport mode (by a very long way) that residents of Hackney use to get around.  And to keep these buses moving Hackney has to provide priority for buses on its streets. There is also an obligation on boroughs to do this from a wider, strategic London perspective. It is not just Hackney residents who use these buses and who benefit from priority, it is bus users along the whole route. Bus lanes have been a huge boon to cycling, and of course cyclists also use the bus. 

Hackney has some of the best bus priority schemes in London, like the one below. Hackney has also removed obstructive parking on bus routes to speed them up, which in turn benefits cyclists on busy streets.

Hackney has some of the busiest bus services in London. The stretch of bus lane and bus gate on Amhurst Road protects 100 buses an hour from the effects of traffic congestion and provides protection for cyclists.
However, bus priority and bus infrastructure take road space and buses need access to the kerb. There are now two novel approaches to providing dedicated space for cyclists at bus stops. One approach, developed by Camden (Royal College Street ) directs cyclists into the path of boarding and alighting passengers. The second, developed by TfL and Newham on Stratford High Street directs cyclists behind the bus stops. Neither of these novel approaches is appropriate for Hackney's streets with its high cycle, pedestrian and bus passenger volumes.

The bus stop being built out presently at Stratford may well be acceptable where the pavement is wide and pedestrian and passenger numbers are very low it is inconceivable that it could be introduced generally on Hackney's streets with high footfall and bus passenger volumes.

Space for pedestrians
Like most others, Hackney council has adopted a transport hierarchy for its streets that puts pedestrians at the top, followed by cyclists and bus users. It wants to see a fully accessible, inclusive, public realm.  Urban design is as important as movement. 

Hackney has done much to improve its streets for public life. It has widened the pavements and improved the look and the feel of public spaces in its key centres of Stoke Newington Church Street, Hackney Central, Shoreditch, Broadway Market and Dalston. It wants to do the same along Stoke Newington High Street. 

Pedestrians feel most comfortable on wide, clear and continuous pavements. In Hackney Central policies to widen the pavement and remove highways obstructions (A boards) have been welcomed by pedestrians.

The same census 2011 results that have shown cycling to have risen so dramatically also demonstrate the success Hackney has had in increasing walk trips to work. Almost doubling from 7,811 to 14,054 in 10 years.

Some bloggers have suggested introducing cycle tracks into what are, for the footfall using them, quite narrow pavements. One campaigner suggested reducing the pavement at Dalston Kingsland to two metres in precisely the location at which the pavement has been recently widened to accommodate increasing numbers of pedestrians! It is even suggested that one-way gyratory systems should be left in place to allow for cycle tracks! These systems are hopeless for pedestrians and bus services.

Pedestrians are most comfortable on a wide, clear, continuous pavement. The last thing they want is the introduction of cycles onto the pavement as evidenced by the high number of police Community Advice Panels (CAPs) which have tackling pavement cycling as a priority.

Space for public life
In Hackney, the UK's second most dense local authority area, great streets and public spaces are vital components of the quality of public life whether for getting around, shopping, play or just enjoying watching the world go by. Hackney's economy and attractiveness as a borough is, in part, down to its great streets and street life. This is important as it is increasingly being recognised that successful economies have also to be great places for public life.

Dalston Kingsland where it is suggested the pavement is reduced to accommodate a cycle track is presently the location for trading and street life.

Space for business loading
Whilst there is a case for removing parking on Hackney's busier streets, businesses will continue to need access to the kerb in order to load. Presently this is accommodated by the use of bus lanes and general carriageway out of peak hours.  Introducing separated cycling tracks must make business loading more difficult.

The problem with kerbs
At the heart of the cyclecentric, separated space campaign is a desire to see additional kerbs installed to "protect cyclists from motor vehicles" or for cyclists to be diverted onto the pavement in tracks, for example around the back of bus stops as illustrated above.  This is said to benefit cyclists, but ignores the problems that will be caused to pedestrians, particularly older people and the visually and mobility impaired. Pedestrians (whom hitherto transport planners have put at the top of the transport hierarchy) want to see wide, level, continuous and clear pavements and to be able to cross the street at will. Pedestrians do not want additional kerbs and complexity introduced into the street. Pedestrians do not want to have to look out for cyclists on the pavement, nor do they want to have to cross a cycle track and perch on a foot wide kerb before crossing the carriageway.

The introduction of kerbs and the paraphernalia of separated tracks flies in the face of years of work to establish that our streets are not there simply to cater for movement, but are also places for public life. Just at the time that walking policy has made a shift towards reduced segregation - for example by  the removal of guard railing etc. - and more shared space some cycle bloggers and campaigners want to shift cycling provision towards more separation.

The separated cycle track on Pitfield Street serves a cycling function, but by no stretch of the imagination can this be described as an attractive and walkable street. For able bodied pedestrians it's horrible to cross, for older people and disabled pedestrians it is un-passable. It is poor urban design.
And what of resources?
Whatever focus there is on cycling, money will always be in short supply and it needs to be spent to best effect. In my view limited resources should be targeted at the junctions which are most problematic for both pedestrians and cyclists: the Pembury Circus, Lea Interchange, Dalston Lane / Queensbridge Road, Stamford Hill Broadway, Old Street / City Road.  Also on a list of priorities would be the one-way systems which reduce cycling and bus permeability at Stoke Newington and Hackney Wick. Can separate cycle tracks down Kingsland Road ever compete for funds against tackling these locations?

Where would the space come from for cycle tracks on Hackney's main streets? 
The last time I looked, Hackney's main streets were being used pretty intensively. The footways are wide, but often heaving with pedestrians, the carriageways vary in width, but where possible bus priority has been installed . Much of the kerbside space is used either  for bus stops, alternates with bus lanes as part-time loading bays or is a single carriageway width.

One could i) reallocate road space from the bus, ii) narrow the pavement for cycle tracks. But If buses are vital to the borough and one wants great streets for pedestrians then one would want more bus priority, not less. Where it is possible pavements would be widened not narrowed. 

One could also iii) remove parking or iv) reallocate space from general traffic; to provide cycle tracks, but, this would only be possible on a few short sections of Hackney's busy streets.

Very few of Hackney's streets are of uniform width throughout. and all have many demands on them. Adopting a 'Go Dutch' approach would mean implementing the odd length of separated lane, often at the expense of pedestrian space or bus priority, and then have to stop the lane intermittently, because to do more was simply unfeasible - this is not much of a strategy.

The busiest section of the A10 in Hackney at Dalston Kingsland. This has a nine meter wide carriageway, pavements recently widened and still very busy. Described as perfect for cycling by Hackney Cyclists. Where would separated cycle tracks go?

Space for cycling
There may well be some very busy arterial roads across London where it would make sense to implement separate cycle tracks. There is a need for more and better account to be taken of cycling on Hackney's busier streets, but I can't see that translating into separated tracks because there are too many competing priorities. Cycling is only one of these. Any monies available to be spent on these busier roads would be better spent tackling problematic junctions and improving permeability for cycles and buses by tackling Hackney's one-way systems.

The single most pragmatic thing to do to provide more space for cycling along Hackney's busier streets would be to upgrade bus lane operational times to 24/7, widen them to 4.5 metres where they can be and thin out the parking further on the streets where inside lane widths are less than 4.5 metres. And of course there is much that can be done to manage speed, both with engineering measures and enforcement.

Looking longer term, roads pricing is the answer to calls for more space for all the sustainable modes.