The problem with segregated cycle routes

[Bez]

Have you got any evidence that segregating bikes and motor traffic gets people who otherwise wouldn't cycling? I haven't found any yet but I've found plenty to the contrary.

Take a look at a Sky Ride. Go to your local Forestry Commission family trail centre. Compare the number of women and, especially, children on bicycles at either of those to the number you see on shared roads. Or, indeed, go to the Netherlands. Or take a look at plenty of pavements in the UK, where people on bicycles choose to separate themselves and their children from motor traffic rather than be amongst it.

If you consider, say, under 12s, I'd suggest that the overwhelming majority of them can only be found on bicycles where they are not sharing with motor vehicles. It's surely pretty easy to demonstrate that segregating children from motor traffic gets them cycling when they otherwise wouldn't.

[pjclinch]

If you consider, say, under 12s, I'd suggest that the overwhelming majority of them can only be found on bicycles where they are not sharing with motor vehicles. It's surely pretty easy to demonstrate that segregating children from motor traffic gets them cycling when they otherwise wouldn't.

The problem you have here is it's a sufficiently complex picture that you can look at it from a variety of different angles and the numbers you have aren't really enough to do the job convincingly, particularly if you've got someone going out of their way to be unconvinced. So the rather coarse data means you can't actually demonstrate conclusively that it's the segregated paths in NL that are causing that (you can't show it isn't either!) as opposed to, say, the way they're obviously all wearing clogs or some other characteristic point(s) you want to pick.

However, I at least think you've got a fair point, and whether the segregated facilities in NL are fundamental to the share of cycling being far more independent of age and gender than here or not, the fact is they've got a whole system that works on a day to basis much more effectively than ours, or any that relies on mixing bikes and traffic as the fundamental basis of the plan. Better to try and emulate a working whole system than try and create a whole new one based on sharing all the time where the building blocks don't exactly have a spotless reputation or track record.

Pete.

[Si]

Yep, the NL paths were built because there was a demand - it wasn't that they just randomly decided to build paths and then suddenly discovered a host of new cyclists. Stevenage is an oft quoted example in this country - reasonable (by our standards) network of paths built but virtually no one used them. On the other hand if you just promote cycling but don't put in infrastructure you'll get more people riding but they'll be of very specific types. You need the holistic approach for it to work properly.
In this country the promotional side is nit too bad at the moment, but the infrastructure is a bit lacking in many places, so we have a surge in roadies, leisure riders, etc but the average jo(e) riding to work on the mean city streets is less apparent.

[jgurney]

Go to your local Forestry Commission family trail centre.

I have, and cycled on the roads near them. The driving behaviour of the drivers with bikes on roofs, racks, etc, around cyclists makes it clear that they don't count themselves as such.

[TonyR]

Yep, the NL paths were built because there was a demand - it wasn't that they just randomly decided to build paths and then suddenly discovered a host of new cyclists.

No they didn't. This shows the growth of cycling in the Netherlands through the major building of cycle facilities period which started around the time of the red arrow. Note also how cycle facility building in the same period changed cycling in Denmark and Germany.

[pjclinch]

Like I said, it's often very difficult to isolate individual causes of good or bad in a complex situation, and crucially that works both ways (i.e., deciding we need something, or deciding we're actively better off without it). So you're left with working models like NL that have a large chunk of segregation that may or may not be significant, and you have failing models like UK with little segregation that may or may not be significant. What we want is a working model, not an argument about the importance of segregation where we really don't have good answers.

How best to get a working whole model? Well, just over the North Sea there's a couple someone prepared earlier, that seems like a good start.

[TonyR]

Like I said, it's often very difficult to isolate individual causes of good or bad in a complex situation, and crucially that works both ways (i.e., deciding we need something, or deciding we're actively better off without it). So you're left with working models like NL that have a large chunk of segregation that may or may not be significant, and you have failing models like UK with little segregation that may or may not be significant. What we want is a working model, not an argument about the importance of segregation where we really don't have good answers.

How best to get a working whole model? Well, just over the North Sea there's a couple someone prepared earlier, that seems like a good start.

Well, the Dutch Cycle Balance benchmarking audit seems to be a pretty good place to start as they have correlated the measures within it to levels of cycling in a town or city.

http://media.fietsersbond.nl/Engels/Inf ... alance.pdf

[Vorpal]

I recently came across http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0514000838
which has some interesting comparisons between the UK and NL, and furthermore includes a literature review.

It includes this

Infrastructure and safety

The conclusions of the International Transport Forum (OECD/International Transport Forum, 2013) are probably the most authoritative available:

• Speed management is a critical and effective tool to reduce the severity of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes.
• Where speeds cannot be lowered, or where traffic densities are high, authorities should seek to separate bicycle and motor traffic.
• Separated bicycle tracks are an attractive option as they generally produce fewer and less severe crashes in their linear sections – however, safety may be compromised at junctions, where crashes may increase unless specific counter-measures are undertaken.
• Crash risk at bicycle track/road interfaces is exacerbated by poor sight lines, and confusion regarding expectations of cyclists vis-a-vis motorists and vice-versa. Proper design of junctions contributes to lower crash risk.
A number of other reviews reached similar conclusions. The Danish Road Administration ((Danish Road Administration, 1994), (Danish Road Administration, 1996a)), the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV, 1994) and the UK (Transport Research Laboratory 2011) all concluded that cycle tracks improved safety on links but increased crash rates at junctions. The overall effect on safety was concluded to be neutral. The increased risk at junctions is most likely due to the separation, which leads drivers to be less aware of cyclists. Also, segregated cyclists must scan a greater range of view (c. 240 degrees versus 45 degrees) when approaching a junction (Franklin, 2002).

[TonyR]

I recently came across http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0514000838
which has some interesting comparisons between the UK and NL, and furthermore includes a literature review.

It includes this

Infrastructure and safety

The conclusions of the International Transport Forum (OECD/International Transport Forum, 2013) are probably the most authoritative available:

• Speed management is a critical and effective tool to reduce the severity of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes.
• Where speeds cannot be lowered, or where traffic densities are high, authorities should seek to separate bicycle and motor traffic.
• Separated bicycle tracks are an attractive option as they generally produce fewer and less severe crashes in their linear sections – however, safety may be compromised at junctions, where crashes may increase unless specific counter-measures are undertaken.
• Crash risk at bicycle track/road interfaces is exacerbated by poor sight lines, and confusion regarding expectations of cyclists vis-a-vis motorists and vice-versa. Proper design of junctions contributes to lower crash risk.
A number of other reviews reached similar conclusions. The Danish Road Administration ((Danish Road Administration, 1994), (Danish Road Administration, 1996a)), the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV, 1994) and the UK (Transport Research Laboratory 2011) all concluded that cycle tracks improved safety on links but increased crash rates at junctions. The overall effect on safety was concluded to be neutral. The increased risk at junctions is most likely due to the separation, which leads drivers to be less aware of cyclists. Also, segregated cyclists must scan a greater range of view (c. 240 degrees versus 45 degrees) when approaching a junction (Franklin, 2002).

Its worth also pointing out that the priority is given to bullet 1 i.e. mixing with traffic but keeping speeds low and motorised traffic volume down. There are limited roads where speeds and volumes are allowed to be higher, volumes higher and segregation implemented but they tend to not be in city centres or suburban communities.

A side effect of this is an observational bias. As a motorist in the Netherlands you will tend to be on those roads and therefore see segregation wherever you go because you won't drive into the mixed traffic zones.

[Si]

Yep, the NL paths were built because there was a demand - it wasn't that they just randomly decided to build paths and then suddenly discovered a host of new cyclists.

No they didn't. This shows the growth of cycling in the Netherlands through the major building of cycle facilities period which started around the time of the red arrow. Note also how cycle facility building in the same period changed cycling in Denmark and Germany.

Alas graphs like that don't really show much unless you understand the context.

[AlaninWales]

I recently came across http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0514000838
which has some interesting comparisons between the UK and NL, and furthermore includes a literature review.

It includes this

Infrastructure and safety

The conclusions of the International Transport Forum (OECD/International Transport Forum, 2013) are probably the most authoritative available:

• Speed management is a critical and effective tool to reduce the severity of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes.
• Where speeds cannot be lowered, or where traffic densities are high, authorities should seek to separate bicycle and motor traffic.
• Separated bicycle tracks are an attractive option as they generally produce fewer and less severe crashes in their linear sections – however, safety may be compromised at junctions, where crashes may increase unless specific counter-measures are undertaken.
• Crash risk at bicycle track/road interfaces is exacerbated by poor sight lines, and confusion regarding expectations of cyclists vis-a-vis motorists and vice-versa. Proper design of junctions contributes to lower crash risk.
A number of other reviews reached similar conclusions. The Danish Road Administration ((Danish Road Administration, 1994), (Danish Road Administration, 1996a)), the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV, 1994) and the UK (Transport Research Laboratory 2011) all concluded that cycle tracks improved safety on links but increased crash rates at junctions. The overall effect on safety was concluded to be neutral. The increased risk at junctions is most likely due to the separation, which leads drivers to be less aware of cyclists. Also, segregated cyclists must scan a greater range of view (c. 240 degrees versus 45 degrees) when approaching a junction (Franklin, 2002).

Its worth also pointing out that the priority is given to bullet 1 i.e. mixing with traffic but keeping speeds low and motorised traffic volume down. There are limited roads where speeds and volumes are allowed to be higher, volumes higher and segregation implemented but they tend to not be in city centres or suburban communities.

A side effect of this is an observational bias. As a motorist in the Netherlands you will tend to be on those roads and therefore see segregation wherever you go because you won't drive into the mixed traffic zones.

The first bullet point comes first because, where motor and human-powered transport have to mix, such as in residential non-through roads and sometimes at junctions, it helps if any collisions are at low speed (and the motor vehicle stops rather than rolling over the cyclist, but that's a driver-education thing). It clearly isn't meant to denote that mixing with traffic is optimal wherever it is slow (or else cycling in central London would be attractive to everyone) since most people object to the risk of being in collisions with motor vehicles, however slowly they are moving.

[Vorpal]

It means that speed management is the first tool to be used in accident & severity reduction. Traffic volume is also a factor, and speed management should not be the only method used when traffic volumes are very high.

My preference, however, is not for segregated routes in urban areas, but to have some routes prioritised for bicycles and other routes prioritised for motor traffic. What do I mean by that? Simply that a suitable route should be selected for cyclists, perhaps on quiet streets, a route that has a parallel route nearby, or better yet, a route that was once a major route, but has been replaced with another nearby. This suitable route should then be developed with cyclists in mind whilst slowing, discouraging, or limiting motor vehicle traffic.

It is obvious that important through-routes cannot be treated like this. However, I do think that we often limit what can be 'cycle prioritised' simply because of a car-centric bias.

This sort of approach is common in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and at least some places in the Netherlands.

[MikeF]

The only engineering suggestion is to mix different road users rather than separate them in order to make cyclists more “visible” in the relevant locations

But cycle tracks significantly increased the number of cyclists;

Evidence for that statement please.

Author of the report , as I quoted above "The construction of cycle tracks has resulted in an 18-20% increase in cycle/moped traffic and a decrease of 9-10% in car traffic on those roads where cycle tracks have been constructed." ... which you then re-quoted in a reply!!

Obviously you don't like cycle tracks or maybe it's just lanes you dislike, but whichever, what would your proposals be to increase the levels of cycling?

[mjr]

Stevenage is an oft quoted example in this country - reasonable (by our standards) network of paths built but virtually no one used them.

However, Stevenage and Milton Keynes have been mythologised by the anti-cycle-tracks crowd, with a belief that "virtually no one" uses their networks. In reality, both are about average (MK a bit above, Stevenage a bit below). I wonder if a side-effect of a larger network is that it spreads an average number of cyclists very thinly, so seems empty.

On the other hand if you just promote cycling but don't put in infrastructure you'll get more people riding but they'll be of very specific types. You need the holistic approach for it to work properly.
In this country the promotional side is nit too bad at the moment, but the infrastructure is a bit lacking in many places, so we have a surge in roadies, leisure riders, etc but the average jo(e) riding to work on the mean city streets is less apparent.

I'd say that's a fair average assessment. The nice thing of everything needing improvement is that you can do anything first - just don't expect dramatic results until most of it is in place. Of course, there are the things which make the biggest differences (switching motoring subsidies to subsidies of cycle parking or hire) and things which are easiest to do (cycle tracks in new developments) and they don't always overlap.

[MikeF]

Yep, the NL paths were built because there was a demand - it wasn't that they just randomly decided to build paths and then suddenly discovered a host of new cyclists.

No they didn't. This shows the growth of cycling in the Netherlands through the major building of cycle facilities period which started around the time of the red arrow. Note also how cycle facility building in the same period changed cycling in Denmark and Germany.

Screen Shot 2015-12-07 at 23.00.57.png

I thought the demand was to reduce cycling accidents, which is not the same thing as a demand for cycling per se.
However the graph shows the UK way behind the the Dutch in terms of cycling per day per person. It's not as flat which might be one deterrent, but ask any non cyclist and that won't be the main issue.