First principles assessment

Cycling as a mode of transport offers a multitude of benefits to the individual, society, the economy and the environment. High car traffic volumes and speeds can make cycling less pleasant and a less safe mode of transport to cover a certain distance, in particular where cyclists have to share scarce road space with cars. One of the main concerns that deter people from cycling is safety. Other main concerns are lack of personal security and poor cycle parking facilities. Most cycling takes place on the road, and the National Cycling Forum argues that this will continue to be the case. Making the road network more convenient and safer for cyclists and improving conditions on the road is an essential component of any strategy to promote cycle use. Relocating space to cycle lanes on main roads will often be preferred by existing cyclists, and may be an early priority, especially as part of a traffic calming or traffic reduction strategy.

A problem recognised in many cities is that the cycle network is not joined up. A lack of traffic management measures designed to improve the safety of cyclists can have serious consequences. In 2002 the UK accident rates per kilometers traveled were highest among cyclists second only to those of motorcyclists and pedestrians (DfT 2003). In comparison accident fatalities in other countries with a history of cycle condition improvements are considerably lower.

The mode share of cycling and level of usage per inhabitant varies considerably between countries and places. In Denmark and The Netherlands more than half of the populations are regular cyclists and on their bikes at least on or twice a week. In the UK about 13% of the people are regular cyclists, in France less than 10% ( Eurobarometer 1999). Also the total distance cycled annually varies considerably. Again Denmark and The Netherlands are top nations with around 1000km per inhabitant per year. The French population cycle fairly more than the British, but only around 87 and 81 km respectively.

The differences in cycle usage among countries and cities have a number of reasons. It is often wrongly thought that geography or climate determine bicycle use. But as shown in Figure 1.1 below high levels occur in otherwise similar areas. This indicates that transport policies and attitudes are more important (Littman 1999). Hilliness is obviously an important factor but even fairly hilly areas can accommodate many cyclists as long as long gradients are fairly gentle. Provisions for cyclists vary significantly between countries and places and cycle usage is generally highest where cyclists find the most favourable conditions. In Cambridge for example 27% of journeys are made by bicycle (European Commission 1999) whilst in Liverpool it is estimated to be less than 2%.

Figure 1.1 Percent of total trips made with different modes in some countries and cities. Source: Pucher & Lefevre (1996)

Cycle lanes, cycle tracks, advanced stop lines, customized crossing facilities other priority measures form essential elements of any transport infrastructure designed to enable safe and convenient travel conditions for cyclists. The introduction or improvement of these measures addresses cyclists’ safety, personal security and travel convenience as a means to encourage cycling as a mode of transport in order to shift the modal split towards a higher cycling share. New specific facilities for cyclists can be particularly beneficial in urban areas where congestion is high, and journey lengths are shorter and therefore ideal for cycling. This already allows cyclists to travel faster on average than car drivers during the peak times on distances of up to 5km. Improved cycle conditions could build on this advantage.

European cities, which have similar topography and climate to the UK where the mode share of cycling is low have achieved significant levels of cycling after introducing proactive policies and subsequently implemented measures to improve cycle conditions. Cities like Strasbourg (France), Vienna (Austria), Munich (Germany), Freiburg (Germany), Ferrara (Italy) and many more have achieved significant increases in the level of cycling following political decisions and subsequent implementations aimed at enhancing the conditions for cyclists. In Copenhagen ( Denmark ) cycle measures have been introduced over a period of time to assist with the cities aim to reclaim the public realm, and this includes the road space, from the car for the people. Wide areas of the City Centre have been pedestrianised over a 30 year period and the cycle facilities have been installed along side. As a result Copenhagen is now known for its attractive City Centre environment and public realm, a fact reinforced by the large number of people now living in the core of the city. City living is also more and more attractive in the UK . For example Leeds plans to increase the housing stock to house a further 12,000 people in the city centre . With more people living near work places, shopping and leisure facilities an increased cycle usage will help to alleviate congestion.

It is difficult to judge which component of each city’s cycle strategy and implementation plan has contributed most to this step change but it is safe to say that the combination of wide spread measures and continued political commitment were the decisive factors in the process to raise cycling levels and reduce car dependency. It is argued that the benefits to local authorities include safer roads and traffic, improvements to the public realm, reduced congestion leading to reduced costs and less time lost, increased flexibility and health for commuters and business and increased mobility (NCS 2001). It is not yet possible to show the demand effects of the introduction of cycle lanes into the road space using conventional transport and traffic models.

Supply impacts

No indication has been found that indicate that cycle lanes or other priorities have a contributing effect on road congestion. A significant reduction in road space accessible for cars, well above the impact of typical schemes up to date, may contribute to car congestion. Todd (1999) suggests that on un-congested roads and separated paths cycling causes no traffic congestion. On congested roads with cycle lanes he argues that cycle lanes contribute little to traffic congestion except at junctions and intersections where other vehicles’ turning movements and lane shifting maneuvers may be delayed. In this context it is important to investigate to what extent additional cycle trips as a result of improved cycling conditions such as cycle lanes have replaced trips formerly made by car.

Any UK studies covering the impact of cycle priority measures on road congestion in detail have not been found but these may well exists. A Swedish in-depth study of 13 new cycle lanes concludes that cycle lanes in general do not reduce the speed of car traffic (Nilsson 2003). An explanation is that a main road cycle lane on average only increases the normal distance between the driving car and the kerb slightly (34 cm), taking up little space. The benefits to the cyclists are though important not least as the cars keep a longer and more consistent distance to cyclists. Nilsson (2003) also identifies time savings among cyclists as one of the benefits of new cycle lanes. Todd (1999) argues that congestion is reduced when some motorists usually driving on congested roads with cycle lanes shift to cycling. Hence the relocation of road space in favor of cycle priorities may in fact reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road and thereby reduce congestion. In particular the benefits of the cycle in terms of little or no space demand for parking is a key to that cycle facilities in fact can contribute to increased capacity of an urban transport network.

The provision of cycle facilities will incur some investment costs though these may be highly variable depending on the nature of measures. Cycle provisions are generally much cheaper if appropriate design standards are incorporated into scheduled road construction and land development projects. At this stage S106 agreements could help to pay for at least part of the costs. In urban areas reduced car usage as a result of improved cycling provisions is suggested to reduce the total government roadway and maintenance costs.

Cycle tracks and special traffic lights are among the more costly types of installations. The need for such facilities is normally linked to increased car traffic levels on a road. On-road cycle lanes can be relatively cheap but generally requires significant investments where they have the most benefits to cyclists and can meet other transport objectives. In any case investment for cycle provisions can often be considered as good value for money. Analysis of the total budget allotted to cycle provisions by a number of German towns has shown that around £3.50 per inhabitant over of period of five to seven years are required in order to introduce and entire pro-cycling policy including network, information and promotion (European Commission 1999). One continental city spend around £18 per inhabitant to develop and promote an already much comprehensive cycle network.

Commuting and school traffic account for the majority of peak time congestion and it is clear that business would benefit from modal shift in these two areas. Cycle commuting can reduce business costs as employees spend less time in traffic queues and are likely to take less sick leave (European Commission 1999). Where a real reduction in motor traffic is achieved as a result of a modal shift from driving to cycling the capacity of the urban transport network. Land saved in this way can be used for higher density urban development, which ultimately reduces urban sprawl and the need to travel long distances.

Cycle accidents are generally significantly lower per mile cycled in European cities with an extensive cycle network. It can therefore be assumed that new cycle facilities generally improve safety for cyclists, especially for those who are less experienced. Cycle lanes on main streets normally have safety benefits while cycle lanes on minor streets are less suitable (Nilsson 2003). An element of risk may appear in some cases where cycle lanes are built on main streets. One example is when a car stops to let another vehicle in the opposite direction turn right and the latter car crosses the opposite cycle lane to enter the side road. In the event of congestion such an unexpected car movement might be very difficult to detect for a cyclist passing the queue on the left hand side cycle lane. This may particularly be a problem where cycle flows are low and motorists are not used to adapt their behavior to the cyclists. On the balance the positive impact on safety is closely related to the design of cycle facilities, in particular where cyclists are supposed to rejoin the carriageway from a segregated track and at junctions. In some European towns and cities it has been shown that work to encourage cycling be improving street infrastructure has helped improve road safety by contributing to lower traffic speeds (Mayor of London 2002). A general view among both cyclists and motorists is that cycle lanes improve the cyclists’ visibility to drivers (Nilsson 2003).

Cyclists are more likely than other vehicle users to shop in their local centers and to support local businesses. It is often assumed that motorists are better customers who spend more in shops and supermarkets than those cycling, walking or using public transport. Studies, however, have shown that this is not necessarily the case. In certain categories cyclists are in fact better costumers. Cyclists often buy smaller quantities each time they go shopping. As a result they go more often and thereby exposing themselves to more ‘temptation’ to buy (European Commission 1999).

Regular cycling can be an easy way to achieve the recommended ‘half an hour a day’ of physical activity for health. As such cycling can help against a wide range of complaints and diseases including coronary heart disease, overweight and obesity. A link between regular exercise and good health has been established in research studies throughout the world, including publications by the British Medical Association (BMA 1990).

Cycling is a quiet non-pollutant mode of transport and helps to reduce emissions of CO 2 and other pollutants where it replaces journey previously made by car. Per mile air pollution reductions are large because cycling usually replaces short, cold start trips for which internal combustion engines have high emission rates. Additional environmental benefits results from the fact that cycling produces minimal noise and takes up very little space when in operation and when parked.

Studies in the German city of Münster have shown that cyclists spend more money in local retail than motorist per m 2/head of road space and parking. In other cases new cycle lanes may rightly be opposed by some types of shops that are more dependant on customers arriving by car, in particular if the measures have a negative impact on nearby on-street car parking.

As a low-cost form of travel cycling is potentially accessible to most of the population, in particular important as large sections of the population has no drivers license. Cycling can improve mobility and social inclusion by allowing socially and economically disadvantaged people access to services and facilities. More cyclists on the road areextra ‘eyes on the street’ and can reduce the opportunity for unobserved crime. This in turn may contribute to the perception of safer streets.

Contribution to objectives

Expected impact on problems

Expected winners and losers

A survey in the Canada has shown that 82% of those interviewed support additional government spending on cycle facilities (Environics 1998, sighted in Todd 1999). In Europe too several surveys have measured the acceptability of measures put forward to reduce car use. These have shown that politicians and transport engineers are more skeptical to increased public expenditure on cycle provisions than any other group including motorists. The public is ready for a change (European Commission 1999). Perhaps sometimes the d emands of the vocal car lobby are generally given more attention by decision makers when budget decisions are taken than concerns of the safety of cyclists and the efficiency of the urban transport network.

A lack of cycle provisions results in low cycling figures but it is often argued that cycle usage levels are too low to justify the commitment of resources to improve conditions. However, a comparison of public funding levels across national, regional and local levels for non-car based travel such as cycling and car based travel shows that cycling tends to be under-supported politically and financially in proportion to the number of trips.