Forum topic: Improving infrastructure for cycling - authoritative information about why it's necessary and ways of doing it

The prize for action on active transport is a genuine legacy to society, providing:

1. A healthier population, with less incidence of non-communicable disease, where activity has become a natural part of people’s everyday lives;

2. Less congested, more attractive and safer urban environments which are valued more by their communities, who are in turn more socially engaged;

3. Stronger local economies where communities work more efficiently and spend more locally; and

4. Cost effective investment for society, delivering pronounced benefit to cost ratios on schemes on a wide scale.

Our vision is for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, but one that is also greener and safer and improves quality of life in our communities.

Two-thirds of all journeys are under five miles – many of these trips could be easily cycled, walked or undertaken by public transport. We want to make travelling on foot, by bike or on public transport more attractive. Our work indicates that a substantial proportion of drivers would be willing to drive less, particularly for shorter trips, if practical alternatives were available (British Social Attitudes Survey, 2009). That is what this White Paper is about – offering people choices that will deliver that shift in behaviour, in many more local journeys, particularly drawing on what has been tried and tested.

[...]we found a range of conditions to be common in most cities with mature cycling cultures, recent significant growth in cycling, or a commitment to growing cycling. Together, these conditions comprise what could be considered an ideal basis for growing cycling.

1.There is strong, clear political and technical pro-cycling leadership which is supported through all parts of the lead organisation.

2.Cycling is considered an entirely legitimate, desirable, everyday, ‘grown up’ mode of transport, worthy of investment, even if current cycling levels are comparatively low.

3.Increasing cycle mode share is part of an integrated approach to decreasing car mode share. There is no intended overall abstraction from walking and public transport; and improving cycle safety and convenience is not intended to diminish pedestrian safety and convenience.

4.Loss of traffic capacity or parking to create better cycling facilities, while often a considerable challenge, is not a veto on such action.

5.There is dedicated, fit-for-purpose space for cycling, generally free of intrusion
by heavy and fast motor vehicle traffic. In cities where the aim is to grow cycling rapidly, simple, cheap and effective means of securing this space have been used as first steps, with more permanent solutions following in due course.

6.There is clarity about the overall cycling network (including planned future development), with connectedness, continuity, directness and legibility all being key attributes.

7.There is no differential cycle route branding, simply three principal types of cycle facility that make up well-planned and designed cycle networks:

a.Paths/tracks/lanes on busier streets which provide a degree of separation from motor vehicles that is appropriate to motor traffic flows/speeds and the demand for cycling.

b.Quiet streets/’bicycle streets’ with 30kph/20mph or lower speed limits and often restrictions on motor vehicle access, particularly for through movements.

c.Cycleways/‘greenways’ away from the main highway (e.g. bicycle-only streets, paths in parks and along old railway lines and canals), but still well connected to the rest of the network at frequent intervals.

8. There is clear, widely-accepted and routinely-used guidance on the design of cycling infrastructure.

9.The frequency of occasions when cyclists need to give way or stop is minimised. This means that people cycling are able to make steady progress at a comfortable speed.

Protection + Separation

The cities with the highest cycling levels, and those that have successfully grown cycling levels over relatively short periods, generally afford cycling good physical protection or effective spatial separation from motor traffic, unless traffic speeds and volumes are low.

Avoiding compromised designs

Cities that are serious about growing cycling do not employ measures that are obvious compromises; such as cycle lanes that are too narrow to be fit for purpose, operate only part-time, and/or terminate abruptly or with a hazardous merge.

Streetscene impact

Cycling infrastructure can successfully be designed as an integrated part of the streetscape – although there are also unsuccessful examples of this. Though a mode of transport that it is highly desirable to encourage, cycling in cities is primarily a means to an end. Provision for cycling should do as much as it can to contribute positively to, and not to detract from, the wider experience of being in a city.

While it is important that aesthetic concerns do not compromise the practical utility of cycle infrastructure, it is also important that purely functional considerations should not compromise the attractiveness of streets for all users.

Pedestrian-cyclist interaction

In intensely cycled cities, the interaction of cycle traffic with pedestrians can sometimes seem disorderly to UK eyes. However, no evidence was found of specific safety problems arising from such interaction; and people seem generally to have learned to negotiate harmoniously with one another at close quarters. Nevertheless, since the views of pedestrian user groups were not canvassed as part of this study, the known concerns of some UK user groups cannot adequately be addressed by simply arguing “it seems to work fine over there”.

CULTURE

In conducting this study, only in New York and Minneapolis did we find a cycling culture comparable to that frequently derided in London as dominated by speeding MAMILs (middle-aged men in Lycra); a culture that is quite different from the much more relaxed, all-age, helmetless and low-viz cycling culture found in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe.

A high-speed, assertive cycling culture seems to be a corollary of the prevailing driving culture which, in London and these US cities, is often characterised by impatience and limited concern for other road users. Signs of positive change in this regard have been observable in recent years - at least in certain parts of the cities in question; and these may relate to the introduction of public bike hire schemes, to infrastructure improvements, and to less quantifiable social trends. Nevertheless, London faces a considerable challenge in moving from its current street-use culture - with often divisive modal identities - to one that compares favourably with what we found in mature cycling cities.

Bearing in mind the importance of subjective safety in determining whether people choose to cycle or not, we can report that we always felt that drivers in cities with mature cycling cultures were much more mindful of cyclists than in London, and indeed the UK generally. However, we cannot assert that the reason for this is that these drivers are necessarily more respectful of cycling, or that they think “that cyclist could easily be me or my child”, or that they drive around ever-conscious of their ‘presumed liability’ if a collision with a cyclist were to occur. In places like Amsterdam, Berlin, Copenhagen, Malmo, Munich and Utrecht, drivers seemed to take the lion’s share of responsibility for looking out for cyclists while turning. Similarly, drivers in these cities readily fell in behind cyclists in quiet, residential 20mph streets, rather than impatiently (sometimes aggressively) tail-gating them.

There is no evidence that these benign street use cultures are the result of specific ‘culture change’ programmes. Rather, they are a characteristic of liveable cities in which there is a virtuous relationship involving various factors, including good cycling infrastructure, a supportive legal framework, and growth in the number of people cycling.