Controversies have surrounded dedicated cycling routes in cities. Some critics of bikeways argue that the focus should instead be placed on educating cyclists in road safety, and others that safety is better served by using the road space for parking. [1] There is debate over whether cycle tracks are an effective factor to encourage cycling or whether other factors are at play.
Some detractors argue that one must be careful in interpreting the operation of dedicated or segregated bikeways/cycle facilities across different designs and contexts; what works for the Netherlands will not necessarily work elsewhere. Proponents argue that segregated cycle facilities have been implemented in many jurisdictions and are both popular and safe.[ citation needed ]
Other countries[ where? ] may have different common urban designs, such as sprawling suburbs, and different cycling cultures where riders may ride bicycles with a wider range of gears and like to travel more quickly, such as those who cycle regularly for sport and exercise, who may choose to ride to incorporate some aerobic exercise into their day. So, while a sidepath system may work for slower cyclists, detractors argue, they might not work for cyclists using faster bicycle types who cannot use such a system safely at their higher normal cycling speeds.[ citation needed ] However, this is contradicted by members of the Royal Dutch Cycling Union, who state that Dutch competitive cyclists have no problems with training in the Netherlands. [2] The Danish Roads Directorate state that the cycle track system "functions best when cyclists travel at relatively low speeds" [3] but what is meant by 'relatively low speeds' is not made clear. There are instances where cycle tracks / sidepaths can accommodate fast cycling as evidenced in this video of a velomobile on a Dutch cycle track.
As more cycle tracks are built in North American cities, more research is being conducted on the uptake and safety of cycle tracks. North American cities that have recently installed cycle tracks have seen significant growth in cyclists using these roads. [4] [5] It is useful, therefore, to use North American examples of cycle tracks/side paths and compare them to similar roads used by cyclists. This will provide better data using cyclists on similar terrain and presumably similar bicycles and experience.
Cycling activists in favour of vehicular cycling have opposed cycle tracks and paths on the principle that they might not be created with the "fast cyclist type" in mind. The UK's Sustrans guidelines for the National Cycle Network are based on recreational use with a design user who is an unaccompanied twelve-year-old. The Dublin Transportation Office has advertised their cycle facilities as being based on an unaccompanied ten-year-old design user. This raises the issue of what happens if different cyclist types find themselves forced onto such devices either by legal coercion or as a result of motorist aggression. This issue is captured in a 1996 review of the Sustrans approach from the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
The fast cycle commuter must not be driven off the highway onto a route that is designed for a 12-year-old or a novice on a leisure trip, because if that happens, the whole attempt to enlarge the use of the bicycle will have failed [6]
Some opponents of cycle infrastructure or cycling in general argue that someone - such as a local government or national government - is fighting a "war on cars" within their area. A commentator in Portland, Oregon argues that the city is fighting a "war on cars" the "experiment has failed" due to falling cycling numbers. [7] The libertarian e-magazine Spiked argues that there is a "war on cars" active in the UK and that this is a 'war on ordinary people'. They argue that environmentalists 'would like to ban cars altogether' and that 'in the age of Net Zero the car is public enemy No.1'. They argue that the Greens 'seem blissfully unaware' of the necessity of cars. They argue that people 'just like [cars]'. [8] This is not a new phenomenon and not restricted to online commentators. For example, in 2010, after winning election, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, called ending the "war on cars" a top priority. In 2014, the magazine Toronto Life argued that Ford was waging a "war on all forms of transportation except cars". [9]
Some proponents of alternative transport to the car argue that there is no "war on cars". This framing 'implies motorists are victims of violent assaults' and the 'complaints are unfounded'. [10]
Facilities must be made wide enough for the street sweepers and snow plows typically used in a locale, or the locale will need to ensure that they are regularly swept or plowed by machines that will fit.
Some locales have issues with road debris in the cycle paths, such as Milton Keynes, UK, finding that cycle path users are seven times more likely to get punctures than are road cyclists. [11] In Ireland some cyclists have demanded simultaneous commitment to maintenance and sweeping as cycle paths are built. [12]
In areas subject to high leaf-fall in autumn, or high snowfall in winter, any cycle facilities must be subject to regular clearing if they are to remain usable. Danish guidance specifies three different categories of cycle track. [3] Category "A" tracks must be kept clear of snow 24 hours a day, category "B" tracks are swept or cleared daily, and category "C" receive less regular winter maintenance. In 2007 the city of Copenhagen spent DKK 9.9 million (US$1.72 million, €1.33 million) annually on maintaining its cycle track network. [13] German federal law requires local authorities to declassify cycle tracks that do not conform to strict design and maintenance criteria. [14] In the UK, facilities for non-motorized traffic are not normally salted or gritted in icy conditions, potentially making them dangerous or unrideable.
Cycle lanes sometimes avoid this problem, as they are part of the road and can be easily accessed by maintenance vehicles operating on that road, incurring no extra cost. They only become filled with debris if the road is not maintained or the lane is purposely avoided.
Tracks used at night can be illuminated by conventional means, or by paving with glowing material. [15]
There are many factors, such as cycle tracks and other cycling infrastructure, which contribute to cycling levels. A number of cities have demonstrated that particular cycle tracks will increase bike traffic on those routes, as shown, for example, in Montreal, New York City and Copenhagen. Bike usage increased by 40% in areas of Montreal where the city invested in bike paths and lanes. [4] [5] In Copenhagen bike traffic increased by about 20% because of the construction of cycle tracks. [16] The construction of separated bike lanes on Dunsmuir Street and Viaduct in Vancouver, Canada, saw bike traffic volumes on the street more than double from before the construction. [17] NYC likewise saw cycling rates nearly triple on weekdays and doubled on weekends when the bike path was installed alongside Prospect Park West. [18]
Seville, Spain, is an example of what is possible on a city scale when a large investment is made in cycling infrastructure over a short period of time. In 2006 there were around 6000 bike trips made daily in the city of around 700,000. By 2009 there were about 50,000 daily bike trips. During those three years 8 urban bike paths totaling 70 km were built; the city centre was closed to motorised traffic; school projects were funded to create safe school paths; traffic calming measures were provided in school districts and the bicycle sharing system ‘Sevici’ was launched. The combination of all these factors helped to create a dramatic change in cycling rates. [19]
After a certain trip modal share it may take more than just installing cycle tracks to create large increases in cycle rates. Cycling rates in the Netherlands peaked in the 1960s and dropped dramatically until the mid-1970s. The decline in bicycle use was "not only caused by mass motorization but also by the related, fairly unco-ordinated process of urbanization and by scores of social, spatial and economic developments", such as a decrease in population density and increased travel distances. The bicycle was almost completely left out of the national government's vision. Certain cities, however, such as Amsterdam and Eindhoven, were slowly implementing more bicycle-positive policies: for example, bike-only streets and allowing cyclists to ignore one way streets. [20] Throughout the 70s cycling rates increased, but the investments in bike paths made in the subsequent period had less effect. Between the late 1980s and early 1990s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure, yet cycling levels stayed practically the same. [21]
When the flagship Delft Bicycle Route project was evaluated, the Institute for Road Safety Research claimed that the results were "not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety". [22] The study by Louisse, C.J. et al. however, did find that "[a]lthough the total number of victims among cyclists did not decline, the percentage of fatalities and severely injured did drop dramatically." [23] A more comprehensive policy change in addition to bicycle routes, on the other hand, helped to raise the cycling rates in Groningen where 75% of all traffic is by bike or foot. Groningen focused on land use policy, city planning and economic policy changes to achieve very high cycling rates. [21]
In the UK, a ten-year study of the effect of cycle facilities in eight towns and cities found no evidence that they had resulted in any diversion from other transport modes. [24] The construction of 320 kilometres (200 mi) of "Strategic cycle network" in Dublin has been accompanied by a 15% fall in commuter cycling and 40% falls in cycling by second and third level students.[ citation needed ]
In some locales bike traffic increases first and bike paths and lanes are installed in order to catch up to the demand. For instance, bike planning in Davis, California was driven by the prior existence of a "dramatic volume" of cyclists in the 1960s. [25] Research on the German bicycle boom of the 1980s paints a picture of German local authorities struggling to keep up with the growth of cycling rather than this growth being driven by their interventions. [26] In relation to the UK, it has been argued that locally high levels of cycling are more likely to result from factors other than cycle facilities. These include an existing cycling culture and historically high levels of cycle use, compact urban forms, lack of hills and lack of barriers such as high speed intersections. [27]
However, Pucher and Buehler, U.S.-based researchers, have stated that "the provision of separate cycling facilities" appears to be one of the keys to the achieving of high levels of cycling in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. [28] Furthermore, urban planners in some cities in the U.S. have started to use predictive analytics to estimate the extent to which usage of proposed bicycle paths will improve health outcomes in specific neighborhoods. [29]
From the advent of the mass-motoring until today, many cycle tracks have been constructed so bicycles could be prohibited from the main roadway as cyclists have been seen as an obstruction to the free flow of motor traffic. [30] [31]
In 1996 the UK Cyclists' Touring Club (now known as Cycling UK) and the Institute of Highways and Transportation jointly produced a set of Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure guidelines that placed segregated cycling facilities at the bottom of the hierarchy of measures designed to promote cycling. [32] However, since 1996, Cycling UK has changed this position and now fully supports physical separation from motor traffic and pedestrians (i.e. protected cycle lanes and cycle tracks) as effective measures for providing cycle-friendly infrastructure. They argue that people 'prefer, value and use off-street bike paths' among other measures which reduce interaction with motor traffic. [33] More recent guidance from Cycling UK states that cycle tracks should be provided along dual carriageways and inter-urban roads. [34] In the Space for Cycling document, Cycling UK says that cycle lanes 'are usually not good enough to make cycling safe and normal for everyone'. [35]
Planners at the Directorate Infrastructure Traffic and Transport [36] in Amsterdam place cyclists and motorists together on roads with speed limits at or below 30 km/h (19 mph), and segregate them through bicycle lanes at higher limits. This is in a context where most of the measures prioritised by Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure (HGV restrictions, area-wide traffic calming, speed limit enforcement etc.) are already in place – see Utility cycling for more detail.
A common myth in the UK is the motor tax fallacy. Some opponents of safe cycling infrastructure argue that cyclists do not pay a road tax and money used to fund the roads should not be directed to improving the safety of cyclists. However, all roads in the UK are funded from general taxation and road tax has not existed in the UK since 1936. Vehicle excise and fuel duty go directly into the consolidated fund - which funds all government activities and public services in the UK. [37]
However, bikeways do have cost. Cities that add bikeways can expect millions in cost depending on the existing infrastructure. [38] In places like the United States, funding of roads comes largely from imposts, or taxes and fees on motor vehicles like gasoline taxes, and registration fees. [39]
Bicycle-friendly policies and practices help some people feel more comfortable about traveling by bicycle with other traffic. The level of bicycle-friendliness of an environment can be influenced by many factors including town planning and cycling infrastructure decisions. A stigma towards people who ride bicycles and fear of cycling is a social construct that needs to be fully understood when promoting a bicycle friendly culture.
A bike path or a cycle path is a bikeway separated from motorized traffic and dedicated to cycling or shared with pedestrians or other non-motorized users. In the US a bike path sometimes encompasses shared use paths, "multi-use path", or "Class III bikeway" is a paved path that has been designated for use by cyclists outside the right of way of a public road. It may or may not have a center divider or stripe to prevent head-on collisions. In the UK, a shared-use footway or multi-use path is for use by both cyclists and pedestrians.
Effective Cycling is a trademarked cycling educational program designed by John Forester, which was the national education program of the League of American Wheelmen for a number of years until Forester withdrew permission for them to use the name.
Bike lanes (US) or cycle lanes (UK) are types of bikeways (cycleways) with lanes on the roadway for cyclists only. In the United Kingdom, an on-road cycle-lane can be firmly restricted to cycles or advisory. In the United States, a designated bicycle lane or class II bikeway (Caltrans) is always marked by a solid white stripe on the pavement and is for 'preferential use' by bicyclists. There is also a class III bicycle route, which has roadside signs suggesting a route for cyclists, and urging sharing the road. A class IV separated bike way (Caltrans) is a bike lane that is physically separate from motor traffic and restricted to bicyclists only.
John Forester was an English-American industrial engineer, specializing in bicycle transportation engineering. A cycling activist, he was known as "the father of vehicular cycling", for creating the Effective Cycling program of bicycle training along with its associated book of the same title, and for coining the phrase "the vehicular cycling principle" – "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". His published works also included Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers.
Vehicular cycling is the practice of riding bicycles on roads in a manner that is in accordance with the principles for driving in traffic, and in a way that places responsibility for safety on the individual.
Bicycle transportation planning and engineering are the disciplines related to transportation engineering and transportation planning concerning bicycles as a mode of transport and the concomitant study, design and implementation of cycling infrastructure. It includes the study and design of dedicated transport facilities for cyclists as well as mixed-mode environments and how both of these examples can be made to work safely. In jurisdictions such as the United States it is often practiced in conjunction with planning for pedestrians as a part of active transportation planning.
Bicycle safety is the use of road traffic safety practices to reduce risk associated with cycling. Risk can be defined as the number of incidents occurring for a given amount of cycling. Some of this subject matter is hotly debated: for example, which types of cycling environment or cycling infrastructure is safest for cyclists. The merits of obeying the traffic laws and using bicycle lighting at night are less controversial. Wearing a bicycle helmet may reduce the chance of head injury in the event of a crash.
A bicycle boulevard, sometimes referred to as a neighborhood greenway, neighborway, neighborhood bikeway or neighborhood byway is a type of bikeway composed of a low-speed street which has been "optimized" for bicycle traffic. Bicycle boulevards discourage cut-through motor-vehicle traffic but allow local motor-vehicle traffic. They are designed to give priority to bicyclists as through-going traffic. They are intended as a low-cost, politically popular way to create a connected network of streets with good bicyclist comfort and/or safety.
A cycle track, separated bike lane or protected bike lane is an exclusive bikeway that has elements of a separated path and on-road bike lane. A cycle track is located within or next to the roadway, but is made distinct from both the sidewalk and general purpose roadway by vertical barriers or elevation differences.
Toronto, Ontario, like many North American cities, has slowly been expanding its purpose-built cycling infrastructure. The number of cyclists in Toronto has been increasing progressively, particularly in the city's downtown core. As cycling conditions improve, a cycling culture has grown and alternatives such as automobiles are seen as less attractive. The politics of providing resources for cyclists, particularly dedicated bike lanes, has been contentious, particularly since the 2010s.
Cycling in Copenhagen is – as with most cycling in Denmark – an important mode of transportation and a dominating feature of the cityscape, often noticed by visitors. The city offers a variety of favourable cycling conditions — dense urban proximities, short distances and flat terrain — along with an extensive and well-designed system of cycle tracks. This has earned it a reputation as one of the most bicycle-friendly cities in the world. Every day 1.2 million kilometres are cycled in Copenhagen, with 62% of all citizens commuting to work, school, or university by bicycle; in fact, almost as many people commute by bicycle in greater Copenhagen as do those cycle to work in the entire United States. Cycling is generally perceived as a healthier, more environmentally friendly, cheaper, and often quicker way to get around town than by using an automobile.
Cycling in Canada is experienced in various ways across a geographically huge, economically and socially diverse country. Among the reasons for cycling in Canada are for practical reasons such as commuting to work or school, for sports such as road racing, BMX, Mountain bike racing, freestyle BMX, as well as for pure recreation. The amount and quality of bicycle infrastructure varies widely across the country as do the laws pertaining to cyclists such as bicycle helmet laws which can differ by province.
Cycling in Denmark is both a common and popular recreational and utilitarian activity. Bicycling infrastructure is a dominant feature of both city and countryside infrastructure with segregated dedicated bicycle paths and lanes in many places and the network of 11 Danish National Cycle Routes extends more than 12,000 kilometres (7,500 mi) nationwide. Often bicycling and bicycle culture in Denmark is compared to the Netherlands as a bicycle-nation.
Cycling infrastructure is all infrastructure cyclists are allowed to use. Bikeways include bike paths, bike lanes, cycle tracks, rail trails and, where permitted, sidewalks. Roads used by motorists are also cycling infrastructure, except where cyclists are barred such as many freeways/motorways. It includes amenities such as bike racks for parking, shelters, service centers and specialized traffic signs and signals. The more cycling infrastructure, the more people get about by bicycle.
The history of cycling infrastructure starts from shortly after the bike boom of the 1880s when the first short stretches of dedicated bicycle infrastructure were built, through to the rise of the automobile from the mid-20th century onwards and the concomitant decline of cycling as a means of transport, to cycling's comeback from the 1970s onwards.
A protected intersection or protected junction, also known as a Dutch-style junction, is a type of at-grade road junction in which cyclists and pedestrians are separated from cars. The primary aim of junction protection is to help pedestrians and cyclists be and feel safer at road junctions.
There is debate over the safety implications of cycling infrastructure. Recent studies generally affirm that segregated cycle tracks have a better safety record between intersections than cycling on major roads in traffic. Furthermore, cycling infrastructure tends to lead to more people cycling. A higher modal share of people cycling is correlated with lower incidences of cyclist fatalities, leading to a "safety in numbers" effect though some contributors caution against this hypothesis. On the contrary, Older studies tended to come to negative conclusions about mid-block cycle track safety.
Cycling infrastructure in the Canadian city of Halifax, Nova Scotia includes most regular streets and roads, bike lanes, protected cycle tracks, local street bikeways, and multi-use pathways.
Cycling is a popular mode of transport and recreational sport in the Philippines.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)| In-roadway bikeways |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right-of-way paths |
| ||||||
| Health, safety and infrastructure |
| ||||||
| Design Guidelines |
| ||||||
