The long, complex debate over the length and structure of the cyclocross season has arguably proved more intriguing than most of the racing this winter, dividing riders, prompting bizarre public outbursts from UCI presidents and disgraced former team bosses, and highlighting the inherent difficulties in growing a sport seemingly reliant on its multidiscipline stars.
But, with summer roadies like Mathieu van der Poel and Zoe Bäckstedt adding to their increasingly bulging collection of rainbow jerseys at the weekend, changes appear to be on their way in the world of cyclocross – thanks to the planned introduction of a condensed UCI World Cup calendar, designed to entice the MVDPs and WVAs of the world, who may otherwise not want to spend four cold, wintery months in a muddy field as they prepare for the Tour of Flanders.
According to reports in the Belgian media, Flanders Classics (the rights holder of the World Cup until 2018) is currently negotiating with the UCI over a new schedule that will mean the cyclocross’ premier competition – which runs from October to the end of January over 14 rounds – will take place entirely in December and January, and over 10 or 12 rounds.
> road.cc Podcast: Lucinda Brand and Eli Iserbyt on the future of cyclocross
The new calendar, which is set to be announced in the spring, will also ensure that World Cups do not fall on the same weekend as other major, traditionally important races (which potentially draw riders away from ‘foreign’ – in other words, non-Belgian or Dutch – World Cups), while aiming to expand cross’s global reach by including more far-flung races, such as the long-touted London event and, apparently, in other UK cities.
“The negotiations take a long time and that is normal. This is about the future of cyclocross,” Flanders Classics CEO Tomas van den Spiegel told HLN.
“The cyclist of the future is multidisciplinary. I’m not just talking about Van der Poel, Van Aert, and Pidcock. But also about Van Empel, Van Anrooij, Pieterse, Backstedt, and Thibau Nys. That is the next generation that emulates Mathieu, Wout and Tom.
“If you want to make cyclocross sustainable, we can no longer ask the riders to adapt to the calendar. Then it seems logical to me that the World Cup adapts to the rider of the future. We have to find a format that allows this type of riders to win the World Cup.
“Then we have to ensure that the World Cup is held in December and January, without wanting to touch the Christmas period. There are a number of historic races there, we should not want to thwart them. In the future it will still be possible to race cyclocross from September to the end of February. But in the big races it must be ensured that the best riders are at the start. This is also the case in other sports and for me that is the future of cyclocross.”
(Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com)
Meanwhile, the subject of the ‘cross calendar also came up in Mathieu van der Poel’s post-race interviews with the Dutch press, after the all-round superstar secured his sixth world cyclocross championships, moving him just one rainbow jersey shy of the all-time men’s record set by Erik De Vlaeminck.
And while Van der Poel remains intent on cementing his status as the best ‘crosser of all time by surpassing De Vlaeminck, the abuse he’s received by some fans during his startlingly dominant winter has forced him to weigh up his future in the discipline in which he made his name, at least when it comes to competing for any extended period of time during the road off-season.
“I think that is the only motivation to start racing again in the winter,” Van der Poel told WielerFlits of his desire to reach that seventh ‘cross world title.
“The rest of the season, as I've said before, isn't important. There is only one race that counts and that is the World Championship.
“Showing that I am the best is not something I am concerned with. I'm just working on that record. Everyone still talks about that De Vlaeminck record. That's something people just don't forget. Even many years after his career, people talk about it. So those are the things that matter and keep me busy.”
He continued: “Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it to have beer poured over you every race. “Although that shouldn't influence the decision too much. On the other hand, I can't just let it pass.
“I still enjoy cyclo-cross, it's something I really like to do. But it's not just the ‘cross. It's everything that comes with it. It takes a lot of energy.
“A day like that on the cross simply demands a lot from you. The racing is perhaps the easiest part of the day. My focus is also more and more on the road, that is where my big goals lie.”
Add new comment
42 comments
Which in itself suggests the issue hasn't been turned into part of a culture war as it would be over here.
"we need our car to leave Paris during holidays and weekends."
Then you're already wasting 5/7ths of the purchase price, a few quid more shouldnt matter.
Thats before you get into the fact that you are buying or leasing a depreciating asset and its the biggest waste of money outside of renting a house/flat.
Wow! Just when I thought we'd hit peak absurdity, Edinburgh council proves me wrong. We're going to reduce car trips by taking away cycling infrastructure, not we're going to reduce car trips by taking away driving infrastructure.
They should go away, make a cup of tea, sit down and read their own policies and then implement them.
It gets worse - as the article says, City of Edinburgh Council is spending £12.5 million on the Roseburn to Union Canal link, to connect up probably Edinburgh's 2 major cycling (and other active travel) resources, namely the Union Canal path and the North Edinburgh Path Network (of which Roseburn path is the southern leg), thereby creating a much-needed safe off-road route between the two for the first time (and therefore between north and east Edinburgh, and south and west Edinburgh). That's just nearing completion.
In addition, CEC is spending £19.4 million on stage 1 of City Centre East to West Link (CCWEL), which provides a segregated path from Roseburn to the west side of the city centre. That's also nearing completion.
So what sense does it make to rip out 2km of the original path network to which these projects were linking to (and the linkages to which formed a major part of their business cases, if not the only stateable reason in the case of Roseburn to Union Canal) so the council can play train sets again? It's ludicrous.
Maybe because the whole tram thing was far less about joined up transport, or low carbon futures than it was a massive flag-wave for Edinburgh in "development" terms.
(Trying and likely failing to avoid what is less a rabbit hole more a county-sized warren...)
After the initial network idea rapidly got scaled back we were left with "the 22 bus on rails" as many said. I strongly suspect this had to do with "image". So "Set your business up in Edinburgh - we're building shiny new expensive infra! We're a modern city, you can get off the plane and smoothly tram into town" (The latter ignoring that the "smart money" will likely still take cabs / have motor transport organised).
Similar for the redevelopment of North West Edinburgh / Granton - probably to do with posters and things that businesses and developers can tout. Is everyone - or even many people - going to tram in, given there's effectively still one tram line (just with a fork in it)?
Another interesting point can be found in Cllr. Arthur's musings on previous projects. He seems to be saying "what we've learned is we need to disrupt people less and deliver quicker (and cheaper)". This is reasonable - but unfortunately they don't seem to have examined why there was so much time taken and disruption.
In the case of CCWEL it was the usual story of inadequate resources - not necessarily money but e.g. trained staff. Plus shouty opposition to cycling (or rather slight reduction in driving convenience and businesses saying "no-one will visit our shops!"). You could certainly do something about that (better resources for your active travel staff and by now they *must* have an idea of how to tackle the usual suspects...)
In the case of the trams as the report last year shows planning was nonsense from the start, from the highest level all the way down. The Council and then the tram company went beyond their own competence without sufficiently taking advice on board. Indeed they often defensively doubled down when challenged - and that repeatedly proved a bad choice even for themselves (e.g. in the courts for compensation).
Those are the lessons I'd draw on. However it looks like they're proposing to simply say "not again!". Naturally they want "least disruption" (to motorists and businesses) but that's leading them to simply use those "free spaces" e.g. the paths.
Of course, public transport and especially fixed-route trams and trains work much better in conjuction with cycling and wheeling, to widen "catchment zones" - especially when you've only got 1.5 lines...
I'm sure taking the tram elsewhere would be more costly and certainly more disruptive than building a cycle path. (And much, much more expensive than not building a cycle path but maybe adding more paint...) Presumably fixing it so you *could* have trams and walking and cycling in the same space would also be more expensive - although I've not seen the numbers on this (I think it's 2 "historic bridges" and a major road bridge which may need work.)
UPDATE - thanks to a lot of people making the effort it seems that the parameters of the consultation have been changed - people will now have more options to consider e.g. they won't just be presenting the "scrap cycling" route as a "this is what we're doing, any comments?" deal.
More here at Spokes.
Yes, definitely to increase capacity we need to remove the third option instead of one of the top two options, right?
(source: NACTO)
That figure is a useful presentation but we need to remember these are max capacities, not necessarily what you get.
While the top option is still seen as the easiest / most convenient one* it's unlikely that we will actually get numbers near the max capacity of the others. We have to push AND pull - make the top option less attractive (at least around where e.g. you put in a tram, some bike routes) AND take measures to encourage use of the more efficient modes.
In the case of buses you have to make sure cars don't hold them up (e.g. option 4 not 2). In the Edinburgh case this line will still go through the busy centre of town on the same line AFAIK - so that may form a bottleneck. (Granted - you might get to Haymarket station quicker from Granton).
* Of course there are many factors which keep us using cars for trips, especially once we have one.
Yeah those figures are off to the level of propaganda.
The Edinburgh tram comes every 7 minutes and has a total capacity of 250 people. That equates to 2100 p/hr. If we were only counting sitting passengers then it's capacity is lower than cars.
10,000 p/hr implies a tram every 90's which is not really feasible on anything but a fully grade separated route. That would normally be achieved with a tram tunnel through the centre of a city which carried multiple services which then spread out once they exit the tunnel.
If you actually have demand for 10,000 people on a single route then what you want is a metro.
I've not looked at these specifc options but I'm pretty sure than this a a leisure cycle path at the moment and not currently a high capacity piece of cycling infrastructure. Ergo it probably makes sense to put a railed vehicle back into this corridor and actually build a proper cycling network where people will use it.
Agree on the important differences between city rail options and picking the correct one for circumstance. However trams (if there were a network...) are very well suited for city transport in many ways. At-grade unlike underground systems, don't sever travel routes like surface rail. Because they operate on fixed lines they can be safer to mix with vulnerable road users than buses*.
As you note the key is limiting the possibilities for them to be slowed by motor traffic. They'll not be going through dense urban areas with lots of stops at 60mph anyway.
* this however requires careful design - something Edinburgh *actively* ignored because "cost" but as likely "started so are just doing it regardless".
This path is very much used for transport as well as leisure use (local campaign group Spokes and also Sustrans do counts and surveys). It is definitely used!
It is a backbone route (we also need more routes which "go to the places the cars bite go" but every network needs "distributor" or connector routes). It is valuable as both recreation and transport. Breaking it would cut off *3* routes (and two new ones CCWEL and Roseburn to canal which is still being built!). It would sever active travel provision to the North and West. That's a major step back.
It links the North west of the city to the centre (and there are clearly some hardy commuters trucking 10 miles or more ). Locally it links poorer areas (Pilton, Drylaw) and ones in development to shops (Craigleith), rail (Haymarket) and city centre - plus as mentioned connecting 2 new routes.
It is a natural choice to revive these former lines for rail. However I don't believe there is a good case for doing this at the *expense* of a backbone of the active travel network. Yes - network! It's rubbish compared to NL but just about functional and better than most of the UK).
Hoping we can find a solution which maintains this while not stopping the council providing trams. If only they could do this "at pace" - and at the expense of private motoring. Alas it seems we're still too soon to really walk the walk as well as talking the talk.
Pages