Segregated Cycle Facilities

This measure was fully updated by RUPPRECHT CONSULT in 2014 under the CH4LLENGE project, financed by the European Commission.


Cycling is promoted as an environmentally friendly, healthy, cheap and flexible transport mode. Where there is an aim to develop cycling as a daily transport mode, then city infrastructure needs to be adapted to ensure that riding a bicycle is safe, efficient, attractive, comfortable and convenient.

Segregated Cycle Facilities is a collective term for a range of cycling infrastructure consisting of marked lanes, tracks, shoulders and paths designated for use by cyclists and from which motorized traffic is generally excluded. It is helpful to make a distinction between two common types of segregated cyclist facility, Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes, as they have different advantages and disadvantages and care should be taken to ensure they are provided in the appropriate circumstances. A Cycle Track is a high-quality, dedicated infrastructure for cyclists intended to separate cyclists physically from motorised traffic, either by a gap (distance) and/or by being raised to a higher level (height). A Cycle Lane is a legally reserved riding space for cyclists on the road, which is located close to the carriageway and separated by markings or kerbstones.

Many cyclists do not feel safe when travelling on roads in mixed traffic. An important objective of segregated cyclist facilities is therefore to make cycling a less dangerous activity and so reduce the cycling accident rate. Further objectives of segregated cyclist facilities, especially those forming part of a comprehensive network, are to give cyclists increased mobility and access to their destinations. For potential cyclists this means encouraging modal switch from use of motorized vehicles and so an improvement in the environment and personal health. There is also a desire to improve equity and social inclusion via improved accessibility for those on lower incomes who cannot afford a car, and for whom cycling presents an affordable means of transportation.

The success of Segregated Cycle Facilities in achieving these objectives has to be set against the environment in which they operate. Differences in culture, history, weather, cycling policy, road traffic levels, urban density and topographic conditions will all affect the share of journeys undertaken by cyclists. Nevertheless, the evidence available suggests that Segregated Cycle Facilities can contribute to increasing cycling and reducing use of motorized vehicles, particularly when implemented as part of a comprehensive cycle network.

Terminology

Introduction

01Where there is an aim to develop cycling as a daily transport mode, then city infrastructure needs to be adapted to ensure that riding a bicycle is safe, efficient, attractive, comfortable and convenient. Segregated Cycle Facilities is a collective term for a range of cycling infrastructure consisting of marked lanes, tracks, shoulders and paths designated for use by cyclists, and from which motorized traffic is generally excluded.

As introduced in the Cycle Networks measure, a city or area-wide network is made up of a series of Cycle Routes. A Cycle Route is an uninterrupted itinerary that links two or more destinations. Each Cycle Route can be made up of a series of cycle infrastructure types, including Segregated Cycle Facilities. In some instances it may be necessary to implement sections of different types of Segregated Cycle Facility to provide a coherent and safe cycling experience.

Here it is helpful to make a distinction between two main types of Segregated Cyclist Facility, Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes, as they have different advantages and disadvantages and care should be taken to ensure they are provided in the appropriate circumstances.

  • Cycle Tracks – a Cycle Track is a high-quality, dedicated infrastructure for cyclists intended to separate cyclists physically from motorised traffic, either by a gap (distance) and/or by being raised to a higher level (height). Descriptions and design guidelines for one-way, two-way and solitary cycle tracks are provided below.
  • Cycle Lanes – a Cycle Lane is a legally reserved riding space for cyclists on the road, which is located close to the carriageway and separated by markings or kerbstones. Advisory Lanes are technically and legally distinct from a Cycle Lane, as they comprise parts of the carriageway marked as a suggested space for cyclists, but without that space being legally reserved for their use.

Special attention also needs to be paid to the design of highways and Cycle Track / Lanes intersections.

Provision of Cycle Tracks or Lanes as single stretches or piecemeal measures can achieve reductions in cycle accidents, but in order to attract more people to cycle, a comprehensive Cycle Network solution is required. Several other infrastructure as well as management measures; like road maintenance, traffic calming and speed regulation will also make it safer and attract more people to cycle.

Description

Important principles and guidelines for the planning and design of Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes are provided below. The PRESTO ‘Cycling Policy Guide – Cycling Infrastructure’ and Infrastructure Fact Sheets (2010) provide the main reference source (Visit: http://www.rupprecht-consult.eu/nc/projects/projects-details/project/presto.html).

Cycle Track

A Cycle Track is the highest-quality cycling infrastructure, physically separating cyclists from the traffic. A Cycle Track is needed along very busy networks and fast roads and on highly used cycling routes, as well as in recreational cycling networks, often away from roads. Cycle Tracks attract and reassure inexperienced cyclists, but are also space consuming and relatively costly. They are very safe along stretches of road, but particularly dangerous at intersections.

A Cycle Track along a road is preferably one-way. Two one-way tracks on both sides of the road
are the clearest and safest solution. At intersections, this situation is easy to understand: all road users can intuitively predict and manage potential conflicts. A two-way cycle track on one side of the road makes intersections difficult to understand, because cyclists emerge from unexpected directions.

Exceptionally, two-way tracks can be justified. To cross a street with cycle tracks, the cyclist
has to make a detour via an intersection. Cyclists may even attempt to cross illegally and dangerously. In such cases, a two-way track can eliminate the need for crossing maneuvers by cyclists. It can also make the network more direct and attractive. Intersections must then be carefully designed in order to present conflicts clearly and unambiguously. Here are some key
reasons for two-way cycle tracks.

  • Very large roads (2x2 or dual carriageway) are difficult to cross and junctions are few and far between. With a two-way track, the cyclist can avoid significant detours.
  • Sometimes, a number of major destinations are concentrated on the same side of the road. A two-way track allows cyclists to move between them more conveniently.
  • In some cases, two main routes intersect with a road on the same side. A two-way track allows the cyclist to connect these two routes more easily.
  • In some cases, the spatial configuration may only allow a two-way track along one side of the road.

The following general design principles are recommended:

  • Separate the Cycle Track physically from the main carriageway, by creating a physical partition or by raising the track on a higher level than the carriageway, or both.
  • In case of two-way cycling traffic, consider centre line marking. In the case of combined cycling and moped traffic, always apply center line marking.
  • Preferably use closed surface paving (asphalt or concrete)
  • Preferably use colored paving, usually red, sometimes blue (may be mandatory).
  • Allow the same right-of-way regime as for the adjacent carriageway. If the Cycle Track has right-of-way across a side road, continue the paving of the Cycle Track across the junction.
  • In case of co-use by pedestrians, add a pedestrian pavement or sidetrack when there are high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians or both.
  • A minimum width of 2 m is recommended for a one-way Cycle Track.
  • Cyclists should have the possibility to ride side by side. Each cyclist takes up a minimum riding space of 0.9 m. This takes into account zigzagging and distance from edges and obstacles. Because of the physical separation, cyclists absolutely need the room to overtake on the Cycle Track itself. This means that a minimum distance from the separation must be respected: between 0.25 m from low kerbs and 0.625 m from closed walls.
  • A width of 2m allows for occasional overtaking when there are less than 150 cyclists per hour (at rush hour).
  • It is recommended to widen up to 4 m for increasing numbers of cyclists, with frequent overtaking.
  • For a two-way track, a minimum width of 2.5 m allows frequent overtaking of cyclists riding at different speeds.

The physical segregation from the road varies in width and design. The farther cyclists are removed from the road the safer they feel. However, space may be limited. Even when space is available outside the built-up area, the distance should be small enough to keep the track visible for motorists, for reasons of social safety.  Two basic design solutions can be distinguished: a wide partition verge when space is available, if not a narrower partition kerb.

 

Partition verge1

Partition kerb2

Elevation3

Application

Outside and within the built-up area

Inside the built-up area, if there is insufficient room for a partition verge

Outside and within the built-up area

Description

Paved or unpaved, possibly raised kerb, fence or barrier

Concrete kerb or ridge, angular or semi-round (possibly a double kerb with paving in between, possibly a raised asphalt ridge)

Cycle track raised above level of carriageway, with a straight kerb

Variations

May accommodate street furniture (lamp posts), low vegetation or trees

May be painted white

Possibly adjacent to pedestrian pavement (on the same level or raised one more level)

Recommended dimensions

0.35 m wide at least
0.70 m with fence
1.00 m with lamp-posts
1.10 m with barrier
2.35 m at least with
vegetation or parking
Outside the built-up area,width must vary withtraffic speed as a safetybuffer: from 1.5 m(60km/h) up to 10m(100km/h or more) 

Width varies
Height on track side: 0.05m to 0.07 m (choose profile that prevents pedals from striking thepartition)
Height on road side: 0.10m to 0.12 m

Kerb height of cycle track: 8 to 10 cm
Progressive lowering towards major intersections
Width of cycle track: min.1.7 m (for safe overtaking)

A Solitary Cycle Track is a cycle track that follows its own path, away from the road network. Solitary Cycle Tracks are also referred to as Off-street Paths (Pucher et al., 2010). In addition to being safe for inexperienced cyclists, solitary tracks are also highly attractive for recreational cycling. One concern that can arise for solitary paths is that of personal security, and therefore planners need to give consideration to whether the track can be routed so that there is ‘passive surveillance’ (overlooking) from buildings and whether lighting should be provided. These decisions may depend on whether the route is designed for utility trips (e.g. commuting, shopping, travel to school) or recreation, and whether the track is an urban or rural setting.

In built-up areas, a stretch of solitary track can be a functional shortcut through a park or residential neighborhood, reducing the mesh width of the Cycle Network.

Especially in the countryside, canal verges and disused railway lines offer opportunities for  attractive bicycle-only recreational links away from motorized traffic and over long distances. These can often be co-financed as tourist infrastructure. Urban routes along canals, railway tracks or through parks also have a recreational potential.

Recreational routes are often circuitous and less direct. Still, they can be functional alternatives for shorter routes, for instance because they are flatter (avoiding gradients) or run through a more attractive environment (avoiding traffic noise and pollution).

Design recommendations for a solitary Cycle Track are provided here:

  • Allow two-way traffic
  • Consider co-use by mopeds (use should be properly signaled).
  • Allow a width from 2m (less than 50 bicycles/hour at rush hour) and 3.5 m (more than 150 bicycles/hour at rush hour) and up to 4 m when co-used by mopeds.
  • For narrow tracks (below 2.5 m), make sure there is a verge on both sides that can be used by cyclists for evasive maneuvers.
  • Consider adding a centre line marking if the track is intensively used, and always in case of co-use by mopeds.
  • If the route is co-used by pedestrians, consider providing a separate side path to avoid irritation, especially when use is intensive.
  • Use closed paving (asphalt or concrete) for greater comfort.
  • Provide lighting for social safety, especially on functional links in built-up areas that are used or meant to be used after dark.
  • Solitary Cycle Tracks are a key tool in permeable urban design and planning of new developments.

New large-scale developments offer unique opportunities to create solitary track shortcuts for cyclists and enhance the quality of the network in terms of cohesion and directness. This is true for any kind of development: residential, shopping, employment, leisure, parks, greenspace and mixed development. The objective is twofold. On the one hand, these functions should be easily accessible for cyclists. On the other hand, they should not form a barrier for passing cyclists. Shortcuts and bypasses for cyclists should be put in wherever they add a useful link to the cycling network. They should be planned in conjunction with pedestrian shortcuts. The most radical example is the Dutch town of Houten. When the town extension was planned, first a network of segregated solitary tracks was designed. Only then was the network of slow access roads for cars designed around it (see further case study information below).

Cycle Lane

A Cycle Lane is a legally reserved driving space for cyclists on the road, visually separating them from traffic. It is recommended when significant numbers of cyclists drive along a moderately busy road. Cycle lanes are a visible, fast and flexible solution on existing roads, needing only road markings. A cycle lane can be an alternative for a cycle track when space is lacking, but only when safety can be sufficiently guaranteed.

Cycle Lanes are recommended along distributor roads with relatively low traffic intensity, but where motorized traffic is too fast to allow mixing cyclists with cars. Cycle Lanes can be used as an alternative for a Cycle Track where space is lacking, at least if speed can be reduced to 50 km/h or less. On estate access roads, traffic volumes are in principle low and traffic is mixed; if, however, in reality traffic intensity is unusually high, a Cycle Lane may be advisable to ensure cyclists’ safety.

Outside of built-up areas, Cycle Lanes can be considered as an alternative for Cycle Tracks. On basic local network routes (not on main routes), but only at low traffic speeds (60km/h or less) and relatively low intensities (2000 to3000pcu/day). At the very lowest intensities, cyclists can mix with traffic and no cycling facilities are needed, except possibly an advisory lane.

Within built-up areas, Cycle Lanes are recommended for major routes (more than 2000 cyclists/day) on low-speed roads (up to 30 km/h). On basic network links, with fewer cyclists, mixing traffic should be preferred, possibly with an advisory Cycle Lane. On faster roads (up to 50km/h), Cycle Tracks are preferred. Only when these are quiet links of the basic network (less than 750 cyclists/day) in narrow streets (2x1 lanes) should Cycle Lanes be considered.

A Cycle Lane is indicated by road markings, as defined by national regulations. They usually include the following:

  • A line marking, usually on both sides, delimiting the Cycle Lane from the traffic lanes. In some countries the line is dashed, in others continuous (with stretches of interrupted line at car exits).
  • A bicycle symbol, indicating the lane at least before and after each intersection. The symbol is preferably repeated at regular intervals (for instance 50 to 100 m in the built-up area, 500 to 750 m outside the built-up area).
  • A safety buffer zone with markings between the Cycle Lane and the traffic lanes is recommended along roads with relatively intense and fast traffic (50 km/h).
  • A level surface. If the lane’s road surface is degraded (potholes) or contains sudden level differences (gullies, manhole covers, water drains), cyclists have the choice between damaging their bicycle and making a dangerous sudden swerving movement. Surface defects should be corrected when providing a lane. Road maintenance should give priority to Cycle Lanes, since cyclists are much more vulnerable to degradations than motorized vehicles.
  • Strikingly coloured paving, for higher visibility, is generally recommended, most often red (NL), sometimes blue (DK) or green (F). Colouring is, however, not generally applied. In the UK, for instance, systematic use of coloring is officially discouraged: the coloring is felt to be visually too intrusive, compromising urban design quality while also adding to the maintenance cost. Moreover, coloring is felt to be more effective when it is restricted to conflict areas, such as advanced stop lines, priority crossings at side roads, contra-flow lanes etc.
  • In any case, it is crucial to define and apply a consistent policy, to create a clear situation for all road users.

A minimum width of 1.5m is recommended (markings excluded). Each marking line is 0.10 to 0.15m wide.

  • A cyclist and his vehicle take up about 0.75 m of space. But a cyclist driving along a kerb needs at least 0.9m, taking into account zigzagging and a safe distance from obstacles. A width of 1.5 m increases the safety margin and makes driving comfortable and less stressful. It also allows for slightly wider trailers, occasional overtaking and side-by-side riding, for instance parents accompanying children to school.
  • A width between 2 m and 2.5 m increases comfort and safety.
  • At less than 1.5 m, the cyclist will need to leave the lane and drive on the carriageway to overtake, ride side-by-side or avoid an obstacle.
  • Narrow lanes should only be considered on low-speed roads.
  • The cycle lane should be larger on uphill stretches: because of the larger effort, the cyclist will zigzag more strongly.

Often, busy arterial roads are the most direct routes, especially going into the city centre. This makes them also natural main links in the Cycling Network. In principle, such links require Cycle Tracks. In many cases, however, space is lacking and Cycle Lanes are often considered as a pragmatic, but inherently risky alternative.

  • The safest and most cycle-friendly option is to revise the road lay-out, for instance by taking out a traffic lane or a parking lane to create more room for Cycle Lanes or Tracks.
  • If this is not feasible, efforts should be taken to minimize the risk: reducing speed to 50 km/h, making the Cycle Lane as wide as possible, creating  buffer zone with markings, reducing traffic intensity (by reorganizing traffic routes).
  • As a last resort, if safety cannot be sufficiently guaranteed, it is advisable to abandon the route and create an alternative Cycling Route, although this may be less direct. This should be a high quality route; otherwise cyclists will tend to use the busier road anyway.
  • A Cycle Lane can be used in a one-way street with contra-flow cycling, in both directions if space is available contra-flow direction only (the other direction being mixed traffic or indicated by an advisory lane).

Further guidelines relating to Cycle Lanes along parked cars and Advisory Cycle Lanes are provided in the Presto Cycle Lane Fact Sheet (2010) (visit: http://www.rupprecht-consult.eu/uploads/tx_rupprecht/01_PRESTO_Infrastructure_Fact_Sheet_on_Cycle_Lanes.pdf).

1 Certu – 2008: Recommendations pour les aménagements cyclables.

2 Certu – 2008: Recommendations pour les aménagements cyclables.

3 Copenhagen principles, as described in Certu – 2008: Recommendations pour les aménagements cyclables. Flemish Region, Vademecum fietsvoorzienigen - 2005

Why introduce Segregated Cycling Facilities?

02Cycling is an environmentally friendly (clean and silent), healthy, cheap and flexible transport mode. Further information on the overall benefits of promoting cycling through the introduction or enhancement of a Cycle Network is provided here, as well as an overview of levels of participation in cycling in Europe. This section focuses on the important role that Segregated Cycle Facilities can play as part of a Cycle Network.

When preparing a cycling strategy for a city or area, it is expected that an overarching aim will be to encourage increased levels of cycling, helping to reduce road congestion, air pollution and noise pollution. Within this overall context, the reasons for introducing Segregated Cycle Facilities are:

  • Safety – A primary objective of Segregated Cycle Facilities is to make it less dangerous to cycle and to reduce cycling traffic accidents. Improved safety records and perceptions of safety will help to encourage more people to cycle.
  • Improved mobility –A second objective is to provide cyclists with increased mobility and better access to their destinations.
  • Enhanced environment – a further objective is to provide a more attractive environment for cyclists, for instance through the provision of solitary Cycle Tracks through parks.

Safety

Many cyclists do not feel safe in traffic, especially when they are travelling in mixed traffic on roads with heavy car traffic. People’s subjective comprehension of insecurity can influence their choice of transport mode (Sælensminde 2002) and studies show that traffic danger deters walking and cycling, especially by women, children and the elderly (Buehler & Pucher, 2012).

In many European cities cyclists lack space and other facilities and cycling induces conflicts with vehicles as well as pedestrians. Cyclists’ risk of being killed or injured per kilometre in traffic has been found to be about 6-9 times as high as for car users (Elvik & Vaa 2003). Adjusted for under-reporting of accidents involving injuries in official Norwegian accident statistics, it is shown that cyclists run 40 times the drivers’ risk of injuries. Typically lower rates of walking and cycling in the United States have also been partly attributed to greater dangers faced by pedestrians and cyclists, where cyclist fatalities per kilometre were found to be 3 to 5 times higher than in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands (Buehler & Pucher, 2012).

An intention behind introducing Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes is to improve safety for cyclists. It is important to note, however, that the extent to which Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes increase safety has been the subject of controversy. Studies undertaken in North America and Europe show conflicting results and a large study undertaken on the safety of Copenhagen Cycle Tracks is helpful in demonstrating the importance of careful Segregated Cycle Facility design. Jensen (2006 & 2007) concluded: “The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of 9-10%. The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads.” Even though it could appear from this conclusion that Cycle Tracks decrease safety, when the relative increase in cycle trips compared to the accident rate is considered, it is apparent that the accident risk for each cyclist falls. Commentators have claimed that the study provides further proof that the likelihood an individual cyclist will experience an accident goes down as the number of bicycle riders goes up. This concept of “Safety in Numbers” is often referred to as Smeed’s Law (ECF, not dated). The Copenhagen study also found accident and injury rates were related to the amount of car parking, turn lanes, blue cycle crossing markings, and raised exits at non-signalised intersections, suggesting that risk is dependent on making various improvements to the Cycle Tracks.

Design guidelines resulting from the EU Presto project are helpful in highlighting the comparative strengths of Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes. For instance, because of the degree of separation from motorized traffic, a Cycle Track offers the highest degree of safety along long stretches of road. On the other hand, cyclists on a Cycle Track can be outside the immediate field of vision of motorists. This is mainly a problem at intersections, where movements of cyclists and traffic can conflict.  For sections of road where junctions are frequent and speeds are slower, the provision of Cycle Lanes can therefore provide a preferred alternative, as the movements of cyclists are more similar to the flow of motorized traffic and cyclists are more visible on the approach to junctions.

Improved mobility

As reported within Cycle Networks, an international review of infrastructure, programmes and policies by Pucher et al (2010) found the most compelling evidence of increased modal shift came from communities that have implemented a fully integrated package of strategies to increase cycling. Their work also included a review of the impacts of Segregated Cyclist Facilities. This reported that “most of the aggregate-level studies found a statistically significant relationship between bike lanes and the levels of bicycling, whereas the individual-level studies had mixed findings.” For instance “a cross-sectional study at the city level of over 40 US cities found that each additional mile of bike lane per square mile was associated with an increase of approximately one percentage point in the share of workers regularly commuting by bicycle.” A table showing the review of evidence for Cycle Tracks (Off-street paths) and Cycle Lanes (On-road bicycle lanes) sourced from Pucher et al (2010) is provided below.

Segregated Facility Type

Measured effects on amount of cycling

Cycle Lanes

Cross-sectional studies at the city or district level show positive correlation between bike lanes or paths and levels of bicycle commuting (Dill and Carr, 2003; LeClerc, 2002; Nelson and Allen, 1997; Parkin et al.,2008; Pucher and Buehler, 2005).

Two longitudinal studies found that new bike lanes and paths were associated with increases in bicycle commuting, though effects were sometimes mediated (Barnes et al.,2006; Cleaveland and Douma, 2009).

Four of five RP studies conducted at the individual level did not show a positive correlation (Cervero etal., 2009; de Geus et al., 2008; Dill and Voros, 2007; Vernez-Moudon et al., 2005). Krizek and Johnson (2006) found that people living within 400 meters of a bike lane were more likely to bicycle. Two of the studies found positive association between the perception of having bike lanes and paths and bicycling (Dill and Voros, 2007; Vernez-Moudon et al., 2005). Some RP studies of route choices show that cyclists go out of their way to use bike lanes or paths (Dill, 2009; Dill and Gliebe, 2008; Howard and Burns, 2001; Krizek et al., 2007).

Several stated preference (SP) studies show a preference for bike lanes over no facilities or that bike lanes would encourage more bicycling (Abraham et al., 2002; Akar and Clifton, in press; Antonakos,1994; Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2004; Emond et al., 2009; Hunt and Abraham, 2007; Krizek, 2006; Landis et al., 1998; Madera, 2009; Parkin et al., 2007; Stinson and Bhat, 2003; Tilahun et al., 2007; Wardman et al., 2007). Experienced cyclists may prefer bike lanes to off-road paths (Akar and Clifton, inpress; Antonakos, 1994; Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2004; Hunt and Abraham, 2007; Stinson and Bhat, 2003; Tilahun et al., 2007) or have little or no preference for striped lanes over no striping(Taylor and Mahmassani, 1996; Sener et al., 2009b).

Before-and-after counts in several North American cities and London (UK) show increases in number ofcyclists after bike lanes installed (City of San Francisco, 2004; City of Toronto, 2001; City of Vancouver,1999; Federal Highway Administration, 1994; Sallaberry, 2000; San Francisco Department of Parking and Traffic, 2001; Transport for London, 2004a). However, only one city included counts on nearby streets, where it was found that cyclists were likely diverted to the bike lane (City of San Francisco,2004).

Cycle Tracks

One before-after study of new cycle tracks in Copenhagen reported a 20% increase in bicycle and moped traffic and a 10% decrease in motor vehicle traffic. However, it was not known how much of the change was due to changes in route choice versus people shifting from driving or other modes to bicycling (Jensen, 2008a). An evaluation of a two-way cycle track in London showed a decrease in the rate of bicycling crashes (Transport for London, 2005) and a 58% increase in the number of cyclists on the roadway in 3.5 years (Transport for London, 2004a). Surveys of Danish adults and German cyclists both found that respondents rated cycle tracks higher than striped bike lanes (Bohle, 2000; Jensen, 2007).

Solitary Cycle Tracks

One RP study showed a positive correlation between likelihood of bicycling and proximity to separate paths (Vernez-Moudon et al., 2005), while another found no effect (Krizek and Johnson, 2006). RP studies have found conflicting evidence as to whether cyclists go out of their way to use paths (Aultman-Hall et al., 1998; Dill, 2009).

One SP survey found that about 40% of cyclists preferred a longer route using a path to a shorter route using a motor vehicle lane (Shafizadeh and Niemeier, 1997). One observational study found that women cyclists preferred separate paths over bike lanes, and both facilities over no facilities (Garrard et al., 2008). One intercept survey of bicyclists on paths found that 20% stated they would change modes if off-road facilities were not available (Rose, 2007). Several SP studies found that less confident cyclists prefer separate paths over lanes (see On-road bicycle lanes section, above; Jackson and Ruehr, 1998). Respondents in one survey were more comfortable on a path compared to a four-lane local street with a bike lane, though there was no difference between the path and a two-lane local street with a bike lane (Emond et al., 2009).

Five sources looked at paths before and after construction or the introduction of bicycles. Two did not show a change in levels of bicycling for nearby residents (Burbidge and Goulias, in press; Evenson et al.,2005). One showed an increase in minutes of bicycling among residents living within 1.5 km, when combined with a marketing campaign (Merom et al., 2003). Two studies showed an increase in the recreational facilities (AASHTO, 1999).

Demand impacts

Evidence suggests that, as a standalone measure, the provision of Segregated Cycle Routes could result in the following:

  • potential for improved cyclist safety, where carefully designed;
  • a small modal shift / increase in cycling;
  • where Cycle Tracks are provided, potential for increased cycling by children, women and elderly people.

Segregated Cycle Facilities, together with other measures intended to improve cyclists’ feeling of safety, may be effective in encouraging cycling on shorter work trips and trips in the neighbourhood. Supported also by other measures intended to reduce vehicle kilometres, Segregated Cycle Facilities will probably contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce motorized transport. The possible impacts will mainly apply to shorter trips and will thus not induce great impacts on kilometres by car.

Responses and situations
Response Reduction in road traffic Expected in situations
For shorter journeys, limited change in departure time anticipated due to ease of parking a bicycle when compared with a car. For longer journeys, longer journey durations would be expected, unless travel is along very congested routes. 
Cyclist will use segregated cycle facilities, in particular cycle tracks rather than vehicle routes, if well planned and maintained. This will not reduce car kilometres.
Improved mobility by cycle might result in greater use of local facilities and thus shorter shopping trips in the long term.
Improved safety and mobility by cycle might reduce some shorter car trips.
Improved safety and mobility by cycle might change mode from car and public transport to cycle on shorter trips.
As cycling does not substitute longer car journeys selling the car is unlikely. Segregated cycle facilities are more likely to affect the purchase of a second household car and may delay or prevent people from buying their first car.
Segregated cycle facilities do not induce relocation. In the long term individuals may choose to move closer to locations with high quality cycle tracks, particular if these provide a commuting or leisure route that they would use frequently. Any impact is most likely to occur when moving house for other reasons.
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Short and long run demand responses

The demand responses of Segregated Cycle Facilities are dependent on whether or not they are implemented as comprehensive network solutions and in combination with other measures (e.g. cycle parking and promotion). Since public transport often is an alternative or sometimes a supplementary mode for cyclists (during the winter, when the weather is bad, for longer trips etc.) there is potential for cycling to also increase the number of public transport trips.

Demand responses in terms of change of job or living location are considered to be relatively limited, however locations with access to high quality Cycle Tracks may become more desirable when people relocate for other reasons. Changes to convenience shopping destinations may be more influenced should cycling become more established as a transport mode for short trips. Selling the car is an unlikely response to Cycle Routes in the short run. However, in the long run Cycle Networks might have potential for reducing car dependency, when combined with a range of measures such as mixed-use and high density land use, and the promotion of public transport, walking and car-sharing clubs.

The table below shows a potential for increasing impact in the long term, based on the following assumptions:

  • During the period of 1 – 2 years there is increasing knowledge of the improved segregated cycle facilities and changes in behavior.
  • The provision of carefully designed cycle lanes and tracks forming cycle high quality cycle routes may influence the route and location decision of people and businesses over the long term (5 years plus).
Demand responses
Response 1st year 2-4 years 5 years 10+ years
 
 
 
 
 
 
= Weakest possible response = Strongest possible positive response
= Weakest possible negative response = Strongest possible negative response
= No response

Supply impacts

Provision of Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes will often impact on the availability of road space for motorized vehicles. Within urban environments where space is limited, the demarcation of Cycle Lanes will result in a reduction in the width of existing carriageway/s for motorized traffic. In these circumstances the provision of a Cycle Track may require the removal of a full carriageway for motorized vehicles. Where Segregated Cycle Facilities are provided within new developments or rural areas, there is greater potential and flexibility to provide dedicated Cycle Tracks alongside existing highways, or solitary Cycle Tracks through parks or the countryside.

Financing requirements

With respect to financing, there are significant differences between the provision of Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes. The former will often involve the re-profiling of land, installation of new kerbs and landscaping, and the provision of a new service for cycling. In some cases where Cycle Tracks are provided some distance from the main highway, separate lighting can also be required.

In comparison, Cycle Lanes offer a relatively cheap alternative. In the simplest cases, the provision of Cycle Lanes may only involve the painting of the lane along the existing highway. It is likely, however, that to ensure safety and to provide a high quality route along varying sections of a route, improvements to intersections and alterations to the highway (e.g. changes to kerb alignments and profiles) will be necessary.

A study conducted by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology sets out cycle infrastructure measures that can be implemented with a budget of €50,000 (BMVIT 2011 from NRVP, 2012). This suggests that the provision of Cycle Lanes on the existing road can be in the order of 20 times cheaper than providing separated Cycle Tracks, although the actual cost difference will depend on a range of design factors.

Measure

Per unit cost

Building 300m of a Cycle Track

Approx. €16,700 per 100m

Marking 6.5km of a Cycle Lane

Approx. €800 per 100m

Expected impact on key policy objectives

As a stand-alone measure, the provision of Segregated Cycle Facilities may facilitate a small modal shift and therefore contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce motorized transport. Improved results are expected when the provision of Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes etc. comprise an element of a comprehensive Cycle Network.

Contribution to objectives

Objective

Scale of contribution

Comment

  Provision of Segregated Cycle Facilities can encourage an increase in the modal share of cycling, contributing to a reduction in congestion and an increase in the efficiency of the transport network.
  Provision of segregated cycle facilities can help to reduce conflict between cyclists,  pedestrians and motorists; provide opportunities for social interaction; and help to reduce noise and air pollution.
  Where car use is reduced as a result of the introduction of Segregated Cycle Facilities, there will also be a reduction in the levels of air and noise pollution, including reduced CO2 emissions.
  Some groups of people with lower incomes may benefit from the improved low cost mobility option that Segregated Cycle Facilities can provide. Cycle infrastructure can also encourage more women, elderly people and children to cycle, due to enhanced safety and perception of safety.
  Well-designed segregated cycle facilities can contribute to improving the safety of cyclists, therefore also encouraging others to start cycling.
  The implementation of standalone Segregated Cycle Facilities is not expected to foster significant growth in the cycle-related economy (e.g. cycle shops), but may encourage greater use of shops and services in the local area.
  Public funding is necessary to implement Segregated Cycle Facilities. The cost of providing Cycle Tracks and Lanes can vary substantially.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

The key problems listed are often the result of excessive car use. Segregated Cycle Facilities, provided as part of a comprehensive Cycle Network, have potential to reduce car trips. The impacts on accessibility, social equity etc. will differ greatly between countries with different cycling tradition.

Contribution to alleviation of key problems

Problem

Scale of contribution

Comment

Congestion Reduction in traffic volume through modal shift to Cycling.
Community impacts Increased levels of cycling can have a host of benefits for communities, including: increased opportunities for social interaction, when compared to car travel; more liveable streets (as described above); and reduced community severance by decreasing traffic volumes and improving accessibility.
Environmental damage Modal shift to cycling can help to reduce CO2 emissions, air pollution and noise pollution. Cycle Routes are also more space efficient than roads, and therefore, loss of green space and environmental damage is comparatively limited.
Poor accessibility For people without cars, the implementation of a Segregated Cycle Facility would increase mobility options, particularly for short trips. They can also be of benefit to those with mobility impairments, providing improved infrastructure for people with Electric Mobility Scooters. 
Social and geographical disadvantage Implementation of a Segregated Cycle Facility would benefit all social groups, but only those within a relatively limited geographic area close to the new cycle infrastructure.
Accidents A well-designed Segregated Cycle Facility can help to prevent conflict between different road-users, reduce traffic volumes and increase numbers of cyclists.
Economic growth Where cycling becomes more common, this has potential to increase use of local shops and services, helping to support the local economy.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Expected winners and losers

The construction of Segregated Cycle Facilities does not force anybody to change their travel habits, thus there is more potential for winners than losers. Where the provision of cyclist facilities results in a reduction of space for motorized vehicles, there may be a perception that groups such as commercial freight operators and car users are losers. It is therefore important that the provision of Segregated Cycle Facilities is seen in the context of a broader cycle network and Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan that seeks to reduce congestion.

Contribution to objectives

Group

Winners/Losers

Comment

Large scale freight and commercial traffic

Potential for reduced congestion in the long-term where modal shift is achieved.

Small businesses

Cycling may help increase use of local facilities, due to shorter trips being preferred and ease of parking.

High income car-users

Car-users will benefit from use of segregated cycle facilities during leisure time, if not used for commuting to work etc. Increased opportunities for safe cycling can help to improve health.
Low income car-users with poor access to public transport Cycling provides an affordable means for accessing public transport, particularly when good parking facilities are provided.

All existing public transport users

Reduced congestion may increase the reliability of existing public transport.

People living adjacent to the area targeted

People living close to high quality Cycle Routes comprising Cycle Tracks and Lanes will benefitmore than others.

Cyclists including children

Existing and new cyclists will benefit most from the provision of Segregated Cycle Facilities, with positive effect increasing further if these form part of a well-planned Cycle Network. In particular, groups that were more reluctant to cycle for safety reasons (women, the elderly and children) will benefit from the provision of dedicated infrastructure.

People at higher risk of health problems exacerbated by poor air quality

A modal shift to cycling can contribute to reducing emissions within a city, to the benefit of people with health risks exacerbated by poor air quality.

People making high value, important journeys

Potential reductions in congestion will benefit those using public transport or private motorized vehicles to undertake high value, important journeys.

The average car user

Car-users will benefit from use of segregated cycle facilities during leisure time, if not used for commuting to work etc. This could help improve health.
= Weakest possible benefit = Strongest possible positive benefit
= Weakest possible negative benefit = Strongest possible negative benefit
= Neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation

In many countries there are relatively strong cultural and political barriers to the implementation of Segregated Cycle Facilities and other types of cycle infrastructure. In many cases construction of Cycle Routes is a question of prioritisation of road space between car users and cyclists. Where private property has to be expropriated, resistance can occur.

Lack of knowledge of potential benefits to the society combined with little willingness to prioritise cyclists before car users is a key barrier. Exceptions may be found in Denmark and the Netherlands, where national cycle strategies have been implemented for decades (see Cycle Networks).

Scale of barriers
Barrier Scale Comment
Legal Aside from the potential need to purchase private property to implement parts of a Segregated Cycle Facility, there are no obvious legal barriers to implementation. In some cases, changes to highway laws may be necessary to strengthen the rights of cyclists using segregated cycle facilities, in particular Cycle Lanes.
Finance Planning and implementing a Segregated Cycle Facility can be expensive undertaking, although there is a substantial cost difference between Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes. Once externalities, such the increased security and health effects of Segregated Cycle Facilities are taken into account, they do provide value for money. The need to prioritise scarce public funds between all kinds of transport investment is a significant barrier.
Governance Governance arrangements for the planning and implementation of a Segregated Cycle Facility could provide for the involvement of public authorities, relevant transport providers, and potentially cycling charities and other interest groups. It is not expected that very complex arrangements would be necessary to implement a Segregated Cycle Facility.
Political acceptability Measures relating to cyclists and pedestrians often have less priority than measures relating to motorized vehicles.
Public and stakeholder acceptability There is expected to be support from a range of groups, as well as pro-cycling lobbies, however there will also be those that oppose significant investment in cycling, particularly if this is at the expense of other transport types or public services.
Technical feasibility To perform to the best potential, a Segregated Cycle Facility does require careful planning and design. Implementation of Cycle Routes may also entail significant alterations to some highways corridors. Nevertheless, in comparison to other transport modes, technical requirements are not complex.
= Minimal barrier = Most significant barrier


Case Study 1: Continuous Cycle Lanes on Lewes Road, Brighton, UK

Context

Brighton & Hove City Council in the UK has transformed the Lewes Road, a busy 4.5km dual carriageway carrying 25,000 vehicles a day, into a rapid transit style bus corridor and main Cycle Route. The project therefore offers a good example of where the implementation of public transport and cycling measures can be combined to provide efficient sustainable urban mobility options.
The main features of the scheme, which took around 9 months to complete starting in January 2013, are as follows:

  • The reallocation of a highway lane in each direction to provide dedicated bus lanes and Cycle Lanes.
  • The creation of “floating bus stops” that enable cyclists to pass unimpeded behind the bus stop, preventing the need for cyclists to stop or change into the lane for motorized vehicles.
  • The improvement of intersections through the provision of cycle-specific traffic lights for the cycle lanes.

In total the scheme cost around £1.4mil (€1.7mil) to implement (Sustrans, 2013; Brighton & Hove City Council, 2013a & 2013b).

Impacts on demand

Based on an initial monitoring study, Sustrans report that there have been significant shifts towards travel using sustainable modes:

  • a 14% increase in daily cycling numbers, from 2,085 to 2,383;
  • general motorized traffic on Lewes Road has fallen by 13%; and
  • the number of passengers using buses has increased by 7%, from 15.3mil to 16.4mil.

Impacts on supply

Cycle Lanes were already provided along sections of Lewes Road prior to this project being undertaken, however, the decision to create dedicated bus lanes each required the removal of a lane for motorized traffic in each direction. As the Cycle Lane is located adjacent to the bus lane, this provides a degree of segregation from general traffic, potentially providing an improved environment for cyclists.

Contribution to objectives

In assessing the contribution to objectives, it is important to note that in this case study there is a combined effect resulting from improvements to both bus and cycle infrastructure.

Contribution to objectives

Objective

Scale of contribution

Comment

  Through a combination of the bus and cycle measures, the level of general traffic on the Lewes Road has fallen by 14%. Early monitoring suggests that this is not due to vehicles diverting to other routes. The modal shift achieved will contribute to reducing congestion elswhere in the city centre.
  A reduction in motorized traffic on the Lewes Road will help to reduce air and noise pollution for residents and users of the street.
  A reduction in motorized traffic on the Lewes Road will help to reduce air and noise pollution for residents and users of the street.
  Improvements to the Cycle Lane infrastructure and separation from general traffic (due to the bus lane) may make cycling more appealing for a range of people including the elderly, women and children.
  There are no accident statistics currently available, however it is reasonable to predict that the cycle lanes will increase the safety of cyclists on this route.
  There is no information on the economic growth impacts of the scheme.
  The scheme cost around €1.72mil to implement, but achieved improvements in both public transport and cycling infrastructure.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Case Study 2: Adopting a cycle-oriented approach to planning new development, Houten, The Netherlands

Context

The Netherlands has the highest cycling modal share of any country in Europe, at around 31% (EU Flash Barometer, 2011), but even there Houten stands out as a “heaven for bicycles” (ELTIS, 2014). In particular, for instances where new development is being planned, Houten provides an example of how mobility by bicycle can be a guiding principle for design.

Houten was designated as a high residential growth area in 1966, due to its favourable location near the city of Utrecht and along the railroad to and from the south of The Netherlands. At the time, the population was around 4,000 people, but this has now grown to 48,000 inhabitants. The design for the city, conceived by Dutch Architect Rob Derks, incorporates a ring road and railway station, together with a dense network of Cycle Tracks and Lanes. Priority was given to the provision of direct routes and traffic safety for pedestrians and cyclists, while possibilities for intra-city car use were intentionally limited.

In the 1990s the southern part of Houten was designated as a further area for residential growth. A new residential area was built along with a second train station and a second ring road, resulting in a figure of eight-shaped double ring. The urban design remains similar to the original expansion area of the city.

In total, Houten has 129km of Cycle Tracks and Lanes, as well as Cycle Streets where cars are considered guests and must travel at cycling speeds. Associated measures include Cycle Parking, as well as Cycle Sharing facilities that were introduced at both railway stations during 2010 and 2011. These encourage residents as well as visitors arriving by train to use bicycles when travelling to and from the stations.

Impacts on demand

The design of Houten has a clear impact on the modal share of trips made by cycling. A case study prepared by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (IDTP, 2010) identified the following:

  • Traffic safety levels in Houten are twice as high, when compared to similar (new) towns in the Netherlands.
  • In total, 42% of trips shorter than 7.5km are made by bike, with around 21% completed by foot.
  • Many non-work or school related trips, such as grocery shopping (53%), other shopping (70%) and visiting family and friends in Houten (79%) are carried out by bicycle.

Impacts on supply

In the case of Houten, the supply of road space for cars has been restricted from the outset and therefore the capacity of the highway system is comparatively limited. The emphasis upon use of the train for longer distance commuting and travel means that the supply of public transport has been a significant issue for the city. There was a larger demand than anticipated for trains going to and from Utrecht and therefore the train tracks were doubled (from two to four tracks) and the service frequency has been increased.

Contribution to objectives

Contribution to objectives

Objective

Scale of contribution

Comment

  In the absence of information on congestion, it is anticipated that the high cycle modal share helps to limit congestion on the road network in and around Houten.
  The high cycle modal share increases the opportunities for social interaction, while also helping to limit air and noise pollution.
  As 42% of trips shorter than 7.5km are made by bicycle, CO2 emissions, other forms of air pollution and noise pollution from transport are expected to be substantially below the national and European averages.
  Improvements to the Cycle Lane infrastructure and separation from general traffic (due to the bus lane) may make cycling more appealing for a range of people including the elderly, women and children.
  As infrastructure was designed to encourage cycling from the outset and there are high numbers of cyclists, a good safety record is achieved.
  There is no information on the economic growth impacts of the design of Houten.
  Where new development is planned, incorporating cycle infrastructure from the outset helps to ensure that the optimal network of Cycle Routes can be achieved and that costs are reduced, when compared to retrofitting infrastructure to existing streets.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

 

Case Study 3: Measuring the costs and benefits of the Berlin Wannsee Cycle Route, Germany

Context

The first cycling strategy for Berlin was adopted by the Senate in November 2004. It is an integral part of the city’s overall transport development plan for sustainable mobility that is both socially fair and city-friendly. The implementation of this strategy has contributed substantially to an increase in cycling activity and the Berlin Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment reports that, by 2011, some 1.5mil journeys are completed daily by bicycle in the city (Berlin SDUDE, 2011).

The overall Cycle Network, which in its final stage of development comprises routes totaling 830km, consists of twelve radial, eight tangential routes, seven long-distance routes and additional routes between boroughs. Routes are made up of a combination of Cycle Tracks and Cycle Lanes and some sections are so successful that it is necessary to consider expanding their capacity.

Established in 2005, the 28km Wannsee route is one of the main Cycle Routes in the network that runs from the city centre, through the south-western part of Berlin, all the way to the neighbouring city of Potsdam. In total, €354,700 was invested in the measure: €350,000 in building the infrastructure and €4,700 in cycle route signing (NRVP 2012).

Impacts on demand

In order to determine the demand for the newly established Wannsee Cycle Route, traffic counts were undertaken on a specific section, providing data on usage both prior to and after its creation. This showed that once the Wannsee Cycle Route had been implemented, cycling traffic within the monitored section increased by 50% (NRVP 2012).

In 2008 a cost-benefit analysis was undertaken by Schäfer et al. on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Transport Building and Urban Development, which drew the following conclusions:

  • A 50% increase in cycle trips amounts to 230,000 additional passenger kilometres or 192,000 saved motor vehicle trips (with an average occupancy rate of 1.2 people), assuming an average trip distance of 5km and cycle use on 200 days per year (applicable experience-based data).
  • Reductions in infrastructure operating costs amount to 48% of overall benefits.
  • Reduction in CO2 emissions amount to 15% of benefits.
  • Reductions in material damage caused by accidents amount to 15% of benefits.
  • Based on these figures, a positive cost-benefit ratio of 3.43 was calculated, reducing to 2.49 in an alternative scenario where accident rates are assumed to remain the same (i.e. no improvement as a result the provision of cycle infrastructure).

Impacts on supply

The success of the Berlin Cycling Strategy means that the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment is exploring ways to improve the Cycle Network, with implications for the distribution of road space and priorities between transport modes. For instance, the Department intends to regularly examine the scope for redistributing road space for cycling on the main Cycle Routes, where reserve capacity arises.

It is also recognized that most journeys undertaken by bicycle are local in nature and start and finish where the cyclist lives. For this reason, there is demand for short, comfortable and safe links across the entire area of the city. This can result in a variety of small-scale measures such as opening up cul-de-sacs and one-way streets for use by cyclists.

Contribution to objectives

Contribution to objectives

Objective

Scale of contribution

Comment

  The increase in cycle modal share resulting from the implementation of the Cycle Route is expected to contribute to reduced congestion.
  Increased cycle modal share increases the potential for social interaction and a reduction in air and noise pollution.
  The cost-benefit analysis attributes 15% of the measure benefits to a reduction in CO2 emissions and reductions in air and noise pollution would also result from implementation of the measure.
  Provision of the cycle route may make cycling more appealing for a range of people including the elderly, women and children. In addition, implementation of the route provides improved mobility options for people and low incomes.
  One scenario within the cost-benefit analysis attributes safety benefits to provision of the Cycle Route, however, a further scenario omits these. It is assumed this is due to a lack of data on safety benefits.
  The Wannsee Cycle Route is promoted to tourists and therefore businesses lining the route such as shops and cafes could be expected to benefit from its implementation.
  The scheme cost €354,000 to implement, but the overall cost-benefit ratio was found to be positive.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Contribution to objectives

Contribution to objectives
Objective Lewes Road Cycle Lanes, Brighton, UK Cycle-oriented development, Houten, The Netherlands Berlin Wannsee Cycle Route, Germany Comment
  Provision of Segregated Cycle Facilities can encourage an increase in the modal share of cycling. Monitoring of the Lewes Road corridor in Brighton revealed that the combination of cycle and bus corridor improvements achieved reductions in general motorized traffic. Completion of the Wannsee Cycle Route in Berlin triggered an increase in cycling on the route, potentially helping to reduce traffic congestion.
  Provision of Segregated Cycle Facilities can help to reduce conflict between cyclists,  pedestrians and motorists; provide opportunities for social interaction; and help to reduce noise and air pollution. There is no specific evidence to support this assessment, however, a high or improved modal share of cycling was recorded for all the case studies and the assessment is considered reasonable.
  Where car use is reduced as a result of the introduction of Segregated Cycle Facilities, there will also be a reduction in the levels of air and noise pollution, including reduced CO2 emissions. There is no specific evidence to support this assessment, however, a high or improved modal share of cycling was recorded for all the case studies and the assessment is considered reasonable.
  Some groups of people with lower incomes may benefit from the improved low cost mobility option that Segregated Cycle Facilities can provide. Cycle infrastructure can also encourage more women, elderly people and children to cycle, due to enhanced safety and perception of safety. Increased levels of cycling were recorded in all of the case studies, however is not clear from the data available whether this is included an increase in cycling by women, children, elderly people, and by people with lower incomes.
  Well-designed Segregated Cycle Facilities can contribute to improving the safety of cyclists, therefore also encouraging others to start cycling. Houten provides an example of where the provision of cycle specific infrastructure and high numbers of cyclists combine to ensure a good safety record.
  The implementation of standalone Segregated Cycle Facilities is not expected to foster significant growth in the cycle-related economy (e.g. cycle shops), but may encourage greater use of shops and services in the local area. Consideration of the case study of the Berlin Wannsee Route suggests that the greatest benefits may occur for the local area when the cycle route also attracts tourists, but quantitative data to support this assertion would be helpful.
  Public funding is necessary to implement Segregated Cycle Facilities. The cost of providing Cycle Tracks and Lanes can vary substantially. Cost Benefit Analysis for the Berlin Wannsee Cycle Route shows that cycle infrastructure costs can be outweighed by benefits in terms of infrastructure operational cost reductions; safety improvements and reductions in air pollution, including CO2 emissions.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Contribution to problems

Contribution to to alleviation of key problems
Objective Scale of contribution Comment
Congestion Reduction in traffic volume through modal shift to Cycling. Monitoring of the Lewes Road corridor in Brighton revealed that the combination of cycle and bus corridor improvements can achieved reductions in general motorized traffic. Completion of the Wannsee Cycle Route in Berlin triggered an increase in cycling on the route, potentially helping to reduce traffic congestion.
Community impacts Increased levels of cycling can have a host of benefits for communities, including: increased opportunities for social interaction, when compared to car travel; more liveable streets (as described above); and reduced community severance by decreasing traffic volumes and improving accessibility.There is no specific evidence to support the assertions regarding social interactions reduced severance, however, a high or improved modal share of cycling was recorded for all the case studies and the contribution to alleviation of problems is considered reasonable.
Environmental damage Modal shift to cycling can help to reduce CO2 emissions, air pollution and noise pollution, and Segregated Cycle Facilities are shown to increase levels of cycling in the Brighton, Houten and Berlin case studies. Cycle Routes are also more space efficient than roads, and therefore, loss of green space and environmental damage is comparatively limited.
Poor accessibility For people without cars, the implementation of a Segregated Cycle Facility would increase mobility options, particularly for short trips. They can also be of benefit to those with mobility impairments, providing improved infrastructure for people with Electric Mobility Scooters. Improved benefits are expected to occur in cases like Houten and Berlin, where the Segregated Cycle Facility forms part of a network.
Social and goegraphical disadvantage Implementation of a Segregated Cycle Facility would benefit all social groups, but only those within a relatively limited geographic area. For example, only people living within close proximity to the Lewes Road corridor in Brighton would fully benefit from the Cycle Route. A city-wide Cycle Network is therefore necessary to achieve the full benefits.
Accidents A well-designed Segregated Cycle Facility can help to prevent conflict between different road-users, reduce traffic volumes and increase numbers of cyclists. This applies to all three case studies, although quantitative data on safety is only available for Houten.
Economic growth Where cycling becomes more common, this has potential to increase use of local shops and services, helping to support the local economy. Consideration of the case study of the Berlin Wannsee Route suggests that the greatest benefits may occur for the local area when the cycle route also attracts tourists, but quantitative data to support this assertion would be helpful.
= Weakest possible positive contribution = Strongest possible positive contribution
= Weakest possible negative contribution = Strongest possible negative contribution
= No contribution

Appropriate contexts

Appropriate area-types
Area type Suitability
City centre
Dense inner suburb
Medium density outer suburb
Less dense outer suburb
District centre
Corridor
Small town
Tourist town
= Least suitable area type = Most suitable area type

Adverse side effects

A potential adverse side effect identified is that, where the implementation of a Segregated Cycle Facility requires use of the existing highway, there may be an increase in the congestion of motorized traffic. In the long term it would be intended that increased cycling levels would help to reduce congestion, but there may be short term impacts during the period of behavioural change. Complementary measuress to discourage use of motorized vehicles in the most congestion areas (such as parking restrictions), and improvements to public transport, can help to facilitate a more rapid change in behaviour. The Lewes Road, Brighton provides a good example of where cycling and public transport measures have been pursued in tandem, with successful results.

Berlin SDUDE (2011) New cycle strategy for Berlin

BMVIT (2011) What can you do with a cycling budget of EUR 50,000?

Brighton & Hove City Council (2013a) Safer cycling innovations: Lewes Road scheme presentation

Brighton & Hove City Council (2013b) Lewes Road scheme: Post-construction monitoring report

Buehler & Pucher (2012) Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes. Transportation 39: 409-432

ECF (not dated) Fact Sheet: Safety in Numbers. European Cyclists’ Federation

ELTIS (2014) Better urban design for traffic safety and greater bicycle use in Houten (The Netherlands)

Elvik, R. & Vaa, T (2003): The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. NY, Amsterdam, Elsevier science

Flash Eurobarometer (2011) Future of transport – analytical report. EC

IDTP (2010) Internet-based survey of Houten residents, conducted in cooperation with the City of Houten

Jensen, S. U., Rosenkilde, N. & Jensen, N. (2006) Road safety and perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen. Presentation to European Cycling Federation AGM 2006

Jensen, S. U. (2007) Bicycle tracks and lanes, a before and after study

NRVP (2012) Benefits and costs of cycling infrastructure investment. Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur – Nationaler Radverkehrsplan

PRESTO (2010) PRESTO cycling policy guide, cycling infrastructure. EU Intelligent Energy Europe

Pucher, J. et al. (2010) Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Preventative Medicine 50 (2010) S106-S125

Sælensminde, K. (2002) Gang- og sykkelvegnett i norske byer
Nytte- kostnadsanalyser inkludert helseeffekter og eksterne kostnader av motorisert vegtrafikk. (Walking- and cycling track networks in Norwegian cities Cost- benefit analyses including health effects and external costs of road traffic). Report 567/2002, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo. English summary accessible at www.toi.no.

Sustrans (2013) Inspiring infrastructure: continuous cycle lanes on Lewes Road, Brighton