Finding the Phasing

Will future phases of my public bicycle hire scheme be built? That is the question, but let’s take a step back before we answer it.

Phasing is a funny word, particularly when it comes to its use in the lexicon of transport planners.

Sometimes it refers to stages in a continuous cycle, such as those programmed into traffic signals. Sometimes it is the timing of construction processes required to build one element of infrastructure, such as a bridge. Sometimes it describes the steps, such as design, appraisal and implementation, required to achieve a single, large project, say, a new interchange.

All these examples, though diverse, fit the dictionary definition of ‘phasing’:

The action of dividing a large task or process into phases.

The relationship between the timing of two or more events.

-www.oxforddictionaries.com

Yet there is another common use of the word phasing in my profession: to express the hope that a project or programme will be expanded, extended or otherwise continued beyond whatever might have originally been funded, procured and completed.

And it is this usage of phasing that commonly applies to the development of a city’s bicycle hire. Bicycle hire is a relatively new form of public transport, a 21st century development with only a few exceptions. Potential demand is incredibly difficult to predict, as it is a NEW service and its provision is as likely to generate new trips as to attract riders from other forms of public or private transport. This means that its installation is often approached with a measure of caution; cities and towns do not want to overstretch themselves in case nobody likes or uses the things and it is a total flop. Thus the tendency to plan for future ‘phases’ which have no allocated funding, designated programme or detailed plans to bring them to fruition, other than a vague intention if the ‘first’ phase is successful.

Success, of course, is an even more subjective term than this odd use of ‘phasing’. Is success based on popularity and ridership or income and revenue? Some cities choose to run ‘pilot’ schemes, which provide ample evidence for the opposite sentiment to ‘too big to fail’. But even where a reasonably large network of bicycle docking stations are implemented, with sufficient locking points and bicycles to encourage use, the business of bicycle hire remains a fragile model. See https://hdbudnitz.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/the-business-of-bike-hire/ for some ideas why.

And so we come to my other 2014 baby (i.e. not my almost year-old son): the 29-station, 200-bicycle public hire scheme in Reading, UK. Having spent the best part of two years guiding it through the political and procurement processes and pushing lawyers, land-owners, civil engineering contractors and local media to all come together to launch a (nearly) complete ‘phase one’ on 10 June last year, I am thrilled that it has been well-received.

So is it time to do the groundwork for phase two? Considering the lead-in time for anything of a similar size or even half the size of phase one, you might say yes. But without a confirmed funding source in a time of cuts, you might say no. I say let’s stop using the term phasing in such an inaccurate way. The large task of launching ReadyBike happened a year ago. Anything that happens now is an expansion or an alteration or perhaps even a renewal.

Whilst a major expansion could happen if a funding source becomes available, it is more likely at the moment that, with modest encouragement, the network will shift and grow gradually, organically, in the way that other transport networks usually develop. Hindsight may be able to call different portions of the network ‘phases’, but by talking about phases now, expectations are raised and options may be too narrowly defined. Therefore, what I affectionately think of as ‘my’ public bicycle hire scheme can thrive and grow, even if the pre-conceived ‘phases’ are never built.

Softly Does It

‘If you tell them, they will believe it.’

So once said a local government officer at a best practice sharing session. He didn’t say it from the front of the conference room with a PowerPoint slide on the screen behind him. He said it over a plate of sandwiches of questionable edibility in a tone that slipped under the hum of people networking around the room. He said it about cycling, about building a reputation for his Authority as cycle-friendly, about increasing cycling without spending much money. And he had the survey numbers to back him up.

It’s an opposing sentiment to the old, ‘If you build it, they will come.’ And the comparable value of the two approaches are the source of much debate among transport planning professionals. There is a large school and a larger lobby that insists that to significantly increase cycling as a mode share, miles of segregated cycle lanes or tracks, ranks of secure cycle parking stands, hundreds of signs and many buckets of paint are necessary. Otherwise cycling will not be considered a safe and attractive option. You must spend the money, even if on a currently tiny proportion of your public, in order to increase that proportion.

I don’t completely disagree. See more about justifying walking and cycling spend: https://hdbudnitz.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/justifying-cycling-spend/ in a previous blog.

But there are those who say that ‘soft’ measures can increase the number and share of cyclists in your population without new infrastructure. Then you will have the better business case to make more budget available in future years. Soft measures refer to promotion, marketing, competitions and events. The largest of those, National Bike Week, is fast approaching. Every year, people are encouraged through Bikers’ Breakfasts, free bike maintenance sessions, led rides, camaraderie, prizes and hopefully good weather to take to two wheels, or at least get the thing out of the garage and clean it off. The idea is that raising the profile of cycling will make more people feel it is a normal activity that anyone, specifically them, can do, even without a cycle path outside their house.

That’s not to say that all the organisers and participants in Bike Week don’t want better infrastructure. They do. It’s a chicken/egg kind of deal: raise the profile, get more people riding, and the funding will be allocated and infrastructure built. Building infrastructure can of course raise the profile itself and encourage cycling, as it is, by its nature, something physically present that people see and might want to use. But should building come first? Is campaigning for more building even likely to be successful in these times of government cuts, when providing for cyclists with government money means providing for just 2-5% of the population requiring services?

Thus we are back to increasing cycling, or at least the perception that there are a lot of people cycling in order to attract the money. Soft measure do work to increase cycling. And as for the perception, well, the officer I spoke with said that if you want people to think that cycling is a normal, safe thing that lots of people are doing, just tell them that’s the case, hammer the message home regularly, make it a taken-for-granted fact, and people will believe it. And once they believe it, it might become true.