Segregated cycle facilities

Template:Notsportcycling Segregated cycle facilities may consist of a separate road, track, path or lane that is designated for use by cyclists and from which motorised traffic is generally excluded. Segregated cycle facilities are distinct from facilities in which cyclists are integrated with other traffic (i.e., not separated from other traffic by class).

There are various types of cycle facility and different countries use differing, often legally defined, terms to distinguish them. In essence, segregated cycle facilities fall into two categories; "Off-road" and "On-road". In the United States, off-road unsurfaced trails are commonly called "bike trails" or "mountain-bike trails", while surfaced trails that are separate from roadways and which meet more rigorous standards for width, grade and accessibility are commonly called "bike paths." In the United Kingdom and some other places, the term "cycle path" is sometimes used as a blanket term for any off-road device. The term "designated bicycle lane" has been defined in at least one country (the USA) as a portion of the roadway or the shoulder which has been designated for use by bicyclists.

Caution is required when approaching discussions of the topic. Some of the claims and counter-claims regarding cycle facilities might be best interpreted as competing ideological doctrines rather than established engineering truths. The arguments have also been characterised in terms of a social custom or even taboo which reserves the roadway for motorised users.

The use of such devices has been a source of a great deal of controversy since the 1930s, as motor-vehicle use increased. Some commentators inaccurately use various terms interchangeably. In some cases this is done out of simple ignorance but in other cases this may result from deliberate attempts to confuse matters that involve serious accusations related to fatality, injury and legal culpability. Even the use of the word "facility" is controversial and is disputed.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/highway+system

Terminology

Cycleway, "Bicycle street" and Pedestrian/Cyclist bridge in Nuremberg, Germany

Off Road: Cycleways/Bike Paths

The terms Bike Path, Cycleway (UK & Ireland) or Class 1 bikeway (Caltrans) is generally used to denote a roadway dedicated to cycle traffic on its own separate right-of-way. This may include a separate pedestrian zone or path, or pedestrians and cyclists may be expected to share the same way. In the latter case, the term multi-user path, multi-use path (often abbreviated MUP), multi-user trail (MUT) or recreational path may be used instead.

Off Road: Cycle track/Sidepath

In the U.S., the term Sidepath commonly denotes a path or sidewalk that has been designated for use by cyclists and is within the right of way of a public road, but is not immediately adjacent to the portion of the way for vehicular traffic (i.e., the traveled way). This definition of sidepath excludes designated bicycle lanes, as they are immediately adjacent to the traveled way. In some cases, a bicyclist will proceed straight across an intersectionfrom the bike path that runs parallel to the road, only to be struck by a right-turning motorist who had looked in all the usual directions where cars might be expected but not in the places where bicyclesmight actually be found.

In some cases, a bike path will be designated for use by bicyclists going in two opposite directions. (this typically occurs where it was not convenient to build bike paths on both sides of the road. The unintended consequence of this arrangement is frequent head-on collisions between two bicyclists, each believing that he/she has the right of way.

In the UK, the term Cycle track is a legal term for a roadway constructed specifically for use by cyclists, but not by any other vehicles. In Ireland the legal term Cycle track also covers Cycle lanes marked on the carriageway but only if accompanied by a specific sign. A cycle track may be alongside a roadway (or Carriageway) for all vehicles or it may be on its own alignment. The term does not include cycle lanes or other facilities within an all-vehicle carriageway. UK Department of Transport Legal Definition.

A footway that is for use by both cyclists and pedestrians may be labeled a shared use footway[1] in the UK and will usually be to a lower standard than a cycle track. While cyclists may be required to yield right of way to foot traffic on a shared use footway which is unsegregated (i.e., where both types mix freely), cyclists are usually considered to be the primary users on cycle tracks. Note that the design standards and recommendations for shared use footways and cycle tracks in the UK are different from those for shared use paths[2] in the U.S.

At one time in the UK, the term Cycleway was proposed to differentiate cycle facilities on their own alignments from those incorporated within existing highways. This distinction is not recognised in current UK law however it still remains in Irish law.

On Road: Bicycle facilities

• A Cycle lane (UK) is a traffic lane marked on an existing roadway or carriageway and generally restricted to cycle traffic. It can be mandatory (marked with a solid white line, entry by motor vehicles is generally prohibited) or advisory (marked with a broken white line, entry by motor vehicles is permitted).
• In the USA, a Designated bicycle lane (1998 MUTCD) or Class 2 bikeway (Caltrans) is a portion of a roadway or shoulder which is separated from traffic lanes by the use of a solid white stripe on the pavement and has been designated for preferential use by bicyclists.
• A Bicycle Boulevard is another on-road bicycle facility gaining momentum in the United States with use in Berkeley, Palo Alto, Napa, and many other cities in California.

Explanatory note: Terminology

For the purpose of accurate discussion this article observes the following conventions.

• Cycleway: Road (UK) or path (USA) dedicated to cyclists on separate right of way.
• Cycle track/Cycle path or Sidepath: Roadside converted-footway type structure alongside (but not on) a carriageway (UK) or sidepath alongside (but not on) a highway (USA).
• Cycle lane: A lane marked on existing carriageway (UK), or a marked and signed portion of a roadway or shoulder (USA), that is designated for cyclist use.

History

Pre motorisation

At the start of the 20th century, the bicycle was well on its way to becoming a mass form of transport in North America and Europe. This created pressure to improve the existing, often poorly surfaced, roads and tracks for use by cyclists. Simultaneously concerns arose regarding conflicts between cyclists, horse traffic and pedestrians. This led to sections of routes being upgraded to provide smoother surfaces and/or separate portions for distinct groups.

One example of an early segregated cycle facility was the nine-mile, dedicated Cycle-Way that was built in 1897 to connect Pasadena, California to Los Angeles. Its right of way followed the stream bed of the Arroyo Seco and required 1,250,000 board feet (2,950 m³) of pine to construct. The roundtrip toll was US$.15 and it was lit with electric lights along its entire length. The route did not succeed, and the right of way later became the route for the Arroyo Seco Parkway, an automobile freeway opened in 1940.[3]

Post motorisation (Pre World War II)

With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to the attainment of mass-motorisation. Accordingly, a mass programme of cycle track/cycle path construction was implemented see Expansion of motorised traffic. In addition, new laws were imposed to force cyclists to use segregated cycle paths. In the UK, similar moves were initiated but ran into trenchant opposition from cycling groups. In particular the Cyclists' Touring Club organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to used such devices see 1935 mass cyclists demonstrations. The CTC was successful and the use of cycle tracks largely fell out of favour in the UK. In Germany, cyclists' organisations were outlawed. However, it is not clear if this was due to disputes over transport policy, or wider political disputes.

Post World War II

Post-war German governments chose to continue the transportation objectives of their National Socialist predecessors, hence cyclists were viewed as an impediment to motorised traffic to be excluded and restricted whenever feasible. These policies eventually resulted in Germany largely eliminating cycling as a significant form of transport. In the UK, little use of separate cycleway/cycle track systems took place except in the so-called "new towns" such as Stevenage and Harlow. From the end of the 1960s in Nordic countries, the Swedish SCAFT guidelines on urban planning were highly influential and argued that non-motorised traffic must be segregated from motorised traffic wherever possible. Under the influence of the SCAFT guidelines cyclists and pedestrians were essentially treated as a homogeneous group to be catered for using similar facilities. The SCAFT guidelines strongly influenced cities such as Helsinki and Västerås to build large cycle path networks. By the late 1960s and 1970s, with the cyclists mainly gone, many German towns even began removing cycle tracks so as to accommodate more car parking. Increasing traffic congestion and the 1970s oil shocks contributed to a resurgence in cycling in some countries. However, outside of SCAFT-inspired developments in Nordic countries, the use of segregated cycle facilities was mainly confined to university towns with established populations of bicycle users.

1980s and 1990s

The 1980s saw the start of experimental cycle route projects in Danish towns such as Århus, Odense, and Herning. In addition, the 1980s saw the Netherlands begin a large programme of cycle facilities construction as part of the so-called "bicycle masterplan". Following the "bicycle boom" of the early '80s, German towns also began revisiting the concept. The use of segregated cycle facilities is a central dogma of many organisations associated with the environmental movement. Accordingly, the rise of the "Green" movement in the 1990s has also been accompanied by vocal calls for the construction of "cycle networks" in many countries. This has led to various high profile "cycle network" projects examples of which can be found in Montreal, Dublin and other cities.

The safety of segregated cycle facilities

The issue of the safety of segregated cycling facilities has been one of extreme controversy since the 1930s. Since that time, the established cycling lobby has taken a critical and measured view of their utility and value. On the other hand, the proponents of segregated cycling facilities frequently proclaim them as being necessary to the provision of a "safe" cycling environment. However, in many cases their proponents have no established interest or expertise in cycling promotion and may include representatives of various interests such as the motoring/roads lobbies (including automobile clubs), traffic engineers, the environmental lobby, political parties, the health sector etc. In contrast to such claims, reviews of the international literature suggest a predominant finding associating the use of roadside urban segregated cycle paths with increases, some significant, in the rate and severity of car/bicycle collisions see Cycle Path Safety Summary of Research. The argument has two sides involving both direct and indirect safety.

Direct safety

Diagram showing relative increases in collision rates for users of cycle paths

Urban roads

The source of the direct safety problem lies in the nature of the predominant car/bicycle collision types. The majority of collisions on urban roads occur at junctions and involve conflicts between turning vehicles. Rear-end type collisions are only a major factor on arterial or interurban roads. Accident analysis suggests that there is merit in providing segregated space for cyclists on arterial routes with few junctions to minimize the number of collisions.

For urban roads, with many junctions, accident analysis suggests the opposite, that segregated cycling facilities are likely to increase collisions. These conclusions are supported by the experience of countries that have implemented segregated cycling facilities. In the U.S., UK, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle tracks/sidepaths results in significant, up to 12 fold, increases in the rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1991 European conference on cycling, the term Russian roulette was openly used to describe the use of roadside cycle paths.

In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on the roads mixed in with the traffic than they are using that city's 800 km of cycle paths See Finnish Research. The Berlin police reputedly came to a similar conclusion in the 1980s. In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths but these produce 75% of the cycling casualties Overview of Berlin situation (in German). In the UK town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the "off-road" cycleway network have, on a per journey basis, a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions than cyclists who simply cycle on the ordinary unsegregated roads Milton Keynes Redway study. Cycle lanes / bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban situations but even well-implemented examples have still been associated with 10% increases in casualty rates. However particular concern attaches to the use of cycle lanes in specific urban situations, especially large roundabouts. For adult cyclists, the standard safe cycling advice for handling roundabouts is to try to maintain a prominent position while circulating (Franklin 1997). The use of cycle lanes runs counter to this advice and places cyclists outside the main "zone of observation" of entering motorists; who represent the overwhelming source of risk (50% of collisions) (Layfield and Maycock 1986). In 2002, cycle lanes were removed from a roundabout in the British town of Weymouth after 20 months because the casualty rate had increased significantly (CCN 2002). German research has also indicated that cyclists are safer negotiating roundabouts within the main traffic mix rather than on separate cycle lanes or cycle paths (Schnull et al. 1992). See also cycle facilities at roundabouts.

Rural / Arterial roads

Direct rear impacts with cyclists are a more prominent collision type in arterial/rural road type situations. When they occur in such circumstances they are also associated with significantly increased risk of fatality. Data collated by the OECD indicates that rural locations account for 35% or more of cycling fatalities in Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands and Spain. UK police-recorded cycling collision data indicates that at non-junction locations, where a cyclist was struck directly from behind, there was an overall fatality rate of 17%. The risk of fatality increases with speed limit of the road. Where such collisions occurred on 30mph roads a 5% fatality rate was recorded, climbing to 13% at 40mph, 21% at 60mph and a fatality rate of 31% on 70mph roads. The use of appropriately designed segregated space on arterial or interurban routes does appear to be associated with reductions in overall risk. In Ireland, the provision of hard shoulders on interurban routes in the 1970s reportedly resulted in a 50% decrease in fatal collisions. It is reported that the Danes have also found that separate cycle tracks lead to a reduction in rural collisions.

Indirect safety

There is robust evidence that one of the main factors influencing the individual safety of cyclists is the base number of cyclists using the roads. See safety in numbers effect. Therefore it is arguable that if a segregated cycle facility does genuinely act to create a more attractive cycling environment, and actually attracts more people to cycle, then this effect should contribute to an overall increase in safety. In addition it has been shown that the health benefits of regular cycling significantly outweigh the risks due to traffic danger. Therefore, any measures that promote cycling should produce an overall societal health benefit. However, given their historical purpose, a positive relationship between the use of segregated cycle facilities and increased cyclist numbers cannot be assumed.

The "safety in numbers" argument can also be used to explain the apparent success of cycle facilities in some cities. In most cases, the most prominent examples of "successful" cycle networks were implemented in towns that already had significant numbers of cyclists. It can be argued that in such cases this existing large cycling population already exerted a strong "safety in numbers" effect, which continued to operate despite their diversion onto off-road tracks. Conversely, cycle-network sceptics argue that when imposed in low cycling environments, similar measures will have a greater tendency to increase danger by attenuating whatever limited effect the existing cyclist population was exerting.

Remedial measures

Various remedial measures have been developed in an attempt to solve the identified safety problems of segregated cycle facilities. Examples include the addition of a separate system of traffic signals for bicycle traffic. This can get extremely complex, particularly if there are already separate traffic signal phases for pedestrians, motorised traffic and public transport modes such as trams and/or buses. The need for a separate system of traffic lights also means that building a functioning, completely segregated, cycle path system is a non-trivial exercise in terms both expense and engineering effort. In addition, various road markings have been developed in an attempt to remedy the issue of increased junction collisions. Examples of these include the use of special road markings e.g. "elephants footprints" and special coloured treatments using red, green or blue coloured tarmac. Such treatments are often proclaimed as safety "improvements" [4]. However, cycle-facility sceptics view such claims as, at best, disingenuous. They argue that in many cases the actual purpose is to "restore" the level of safety that existed before the marking/construction of the segregated cycle facility.

The maintenance issue

Debris on substandard (1m) cycle lane at semi-rural location where regular sweeping is absent

Moving motor vehicles generate a "sweeping" effect that pushes debris such as grit and broken glass to the edge of the roadway. By excluding motor traffic, cycle lanes and cycle tracks become parts of the road that are no longer routinely "swept" thus collecting more broken glass and gravel. In addition, some off-road designs are simply not accessible to standard road sweeping equipment. One UK study estimated that cycle path users are seven times more likely to get punctures than are road cyclists. Both sides of the argument acknowledge that many cyclists will simply refuse to use poorly maintained facilities. Cycle facilities skeptics go further and argue that there is no point funding new cycle facilities unless there is a simultaneous commitment of increased funds to maintenance and sweeping afterwards. A similar issue arises in areas subject to high leaffall in autumn, or high snowfall in winter, any cycle facilities must be subject to regular clearing or else rapidly become unusable. For example, the city of Copenhagen spends of the order of DKK 9.9 million annually on maintaining its cycle path network. German federal law requires local authorities to declassify cycle tracks that do not conform to strict design and maintenance criteria . The maintenance issue is used as another illustration of the claimed need to take a more “holistic” view of infrastructure management. Those countries with prominent, extensive, cycle-track networks such as Denmark and the Netherlands also tend to have higher urban population densities. It is arguable that this creates a local tax base that is able to justify and support the increased maintenance efforts required. The higher density also means that the maintenance effort is made more efficient simply by being more concentrated. In contrast, it is argued that caution should be exercised when proposing to construct such systems in less densely populated communities where the required maintenance effort may not be supportable.

Segregated cycle facilities and transportation cycling

Cycle lanes on a roundabout in Newbury, Berkshire.

The use of cycle facilities as a means of promoting motoring at the expense of cyclists’ access has established historical precedent. Despite this, it has become customary for certain commentators, particularly those associated with the environmental and/or motoring lobbies, to proclaim segregated cycle facilities as the "measure of choice" for restoring cyclist access to western cities. Perhaps understandably, this is highly controversial and is a source of, occasionally quite bitter, dispute. See also cycle path debate.

In 1996 the Cyclists' Touring Club and Institute of Highways and Transportation jointly produced a set of guidelines which placed segregated cycling facilities at the bottom of any hierarchy of measures designed to promote cycling. In contrast, planners at the Directorate Infrastructure Traffic and Transport [5] in Amsterdam place cyclists and motorists together on roads with speed limits at or below 30 km/h, but segregate them by means of bicycle lanes when motorists are permitted to travel faster.

Evidence

Between the late '80s and early '90s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (the equivalent of US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure, yet cycling levels practically stayed the same. However, monetary investments in the road and public transport networks during the same period were many times that spent on cycle provisions in the same period, and car ownership did increase by 49% in the same period without a reduction in cycle use.

In the UK, a ten year study of the effect of cycle facilities in eight UK towns and cities found no evidence that they had resulted in any diversion from other transport modes to cycling A similar finding had been reported for Denmark in 1989, where it was found that there was no correlation between cycle facilities and increased cycling unless active traffic restraint measures were also present. In Denmark as a whole, the establishment of a huge cycling infrastructure has been accompanied by cycling levels that have stayed roughly stable (with minor fluctuations) since 1975.

In contrast, in the late 1970s and early 1980s cycling underwent robust growth in Germany, the UK and Ireland while there was little or no investment in cycling infrastructure. The construction of 320km of "Strategic cycle network" in Dublin been accompanied by a 15% fall in commuter cycling and 40% falls in cycling by second and third level students.

Cycle facilities vs. facilitating cyclists

A key criticism made by the opponents of such schemes is that the focus is often on constructing "cycle facilities" rather than "facilitating cyclists". It is readily apparent that there are many cities that have extensive cycle networks and also high levels of cycling. However, the most prominent examples tend to be compact, often mediaeval, university cities. This common theme has been taken to suggest that other underlying factors are driving the levels of cycle use.

Some commentators even argue that the "cause and effect" being seen is actually the reverse of that which is often claimed: That it is the presence of large numbers of cyclists that tends to precipitate the construction of segregated cycle facilities. Possibly the best that can be said, is that in various cities, the safety of cycling, and the number of cyclists present, will result from a complex interaction of spatial planning, population density, legislative environment, and wider traffic/transportation management policies. The evidence suggests that within this mix, segregated cycle facilities can play either a positive or negative role, but this role will be secondary to other factors. The utility cycling article provides a more detailed treatment of these issues.

Cycle facilities in promoting recreational cycling

Mosel Maare Cycle route on converted Railway corridor between Daun and Wittlich (Eifel: Germany)

The use of separate cycleways or bike trails as a means of promoting recreational cycling is much less controversial. In Northern European countries, extensive interurban cycleway networks can be found: Denmark has had a national system of cycle routes since 1993. These may use roads dedicated to exclusively cycle traffic or minor rural roads whose use is otherwise restricted to local motor traffic and agricultural machinery. In Northern Europe, cycling tourism represents a significant proportion of overall tourist activity. The UK and US have recently implemented similar programs such as the UK's National Cycle Network. In the US, the Rails-to-Trails program seeks to convert abandoned railroad beds to recreational trails.

See also

• Trail
• List of cycleways
• List of rail trails
• Utility cycling
• Cycle path debate
• Vehicular cycling
• Effective Cycling
• Bogota's Bike Paths Network
• Rail trail

References and further reading

Additional reading

• Canada: Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates, L. Aultman-Hall and M.G. Kaltenecker, Accident Analysis and Prevention (31) 675–686, 1999

• Collection of Cycle Concepts, Danish Roads Directorate, 2000.

• The Bicycle: A Study of Efficiency, Usage and Safety, D.F. Moore, An Foras Forbatha Teoranta, Dublin Ireland, 1975.

• Chapter 1000 Bikeway Planning and Design, Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, California, USA, February, 2001.

• The bicycle, a study of efficiency usage and safety., D.F. Moore, An Foras Forbatha, 1975

• CCN 45 Cycle lane withdrawn after casualty rise, Cycle Campaign Network News, page 5, Issue No 45 March 2002

• Franklin J., Cyclecraft: Skilled Cycling Techniques for Adults, The Stationery Office Books, UK, 2004 ISBN : 0117020516

• Layfield R.E. and Maycock G. Pedal Cyclists at Roundabouts, Traffic Engineering and Control, June 1986

• Schnüll, R., Lange, J., Fabian, I., Kölle, M., Schütte, F., Alrutz, D., Fechtel, H.W., Stellmacher-Hein, J., Brückner, T. & Meyhöfer, H. (1992). Sicherung von Radfahrern an städtischen Knotenpunkten. Bericht zum Forschungsprojekt 8925 der Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen BASt Nr. 262. Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen BASt, Bergisch Gladbach.

External links

• Photos showing the dangers of bicycle sidepaths on the campus of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Cycle tracks for the expansion of motorised traffic
• On the decline of a mass means of transport
• The 1935 mass cyclists demonstrations
• Getting rid of the Cyclists: Frank Urry and the 1938 DoT Advisory Committee
• History of Cycle Paths
• Cycle Path Safety a Summary of Research
• California's Great Cycle-Way
• Vassar Street critique - a detailed look at a sidepath design in Cambridge, Massachusetts