-
Lots of lovely infrastructure, not many cyclists.
Yeah this is a funny one. My theory is that at the time it was built - and to most extents now - driving around stevenage is easier, cheaper and more fun than riding a bike. So no demand. This doesn't mean there isn't demand elsewhere - check out the regents canal tow path, for example. Plenty of people using that, rightly or wrongly.
Howard-
There's a good writeup on Stevenage on Carlton Reid's site: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/
The cycleways were mostly flat and there were cycle and pedestrian bridges, and underpasses which wouldn’t have looked out of place in the Netherlands at the time, mainly because they were modelled on Dutch infrastructure. Stevenage was compact and Claxton assumed the provision of 12ft wide cycle paths and 7ft wide footways – separated by grass strips as a minimum, and sometimes barriers, too – would encourage residents to cycle and walk everywhere. He had witnessed high usage of cycle tracks in the Netherlands and believed the same could be achieved in the UK.
Instead – to Claxton’s puzzlement, and eventual horror – residents of Stevenage chose to drive, not cycle, even for journeys of two miles or less.
bothwell
Building stuff is expensive; maintaining stuff is painfully expensive; consultancy fees are eye-wateringly expensive.
Anyway, I think the 'social change' argument takes on additional power when you look at the Stevenage example. Lots of lovely infrastructure, not many cyclists.