Why introduce cycle routes?
Cycling is an environmentally friendly (clean and silent), healthy, cheap and flexible transport mode. Surveys on cycling indicate that people mostly give other reasons to cycle than environmental considerations (Borger & Frøysadal 1995, Stangeby 1997, Lodden 2002).

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 is 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.

The primary objective of cycle routes physically separated from motorised traffic is to make it less dangerous to cycle and to reduce cycling traffic accidents. 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 influence their choice of transport mode (Sælensminde 2002).

Secondary objectives, especially for cycle routes defined as a comprehensive network, is to give current cyclists increased mobility and better access to their destinations and to increase cycling, i.e. to reduce the number of motor vehicle trips.

Cycling in Europe
There are great differences between the European countries in cycle share of modal split. The differences are due to different culture, history and cycling policy, elements that constitute peoples habits over years. The following Danish quotations can illustrate this point:

“The bicycle is a national symbol for the Danes, as is the car for the Americans.”

“The Danes are almost born cyclists – just like the Norwegians enter this world with skis on their feets.”
(Road Directorate & Ministry of Transport 1989)

In addition, urban density and structure as well as climatic and topographic conditions in different countries will have an impact on the cycle share. Such differences must be taken into account when considering the impacts and potential of cycle measures.

Table 1 gives an overview of the modal split in some European countries in the nineties. The cycling share of the total number of trips is largest in the Netherlands (27 per cent) and at the lowest level in Great Britain (2 per cent). The cycle share in Spain is even lower, e.g. in Barcelona < 1 per cent (ADONIS 1997). Cycling is more frequent in medium or smaller cities than in larger cities. Increasing motorization is often combined with less cycling. In Norway for instance the national cycle share has decreased from 6 to 4 per cent from 1997/98 to 2001 (Hjorthol & Denstadli 2002). In the Netherlands too the number of travel kilometres by bike seem to decrease slightly after 1995 (CROW 1997).

Table 1: Transport modes for individual daily trips in some European countries. Number of daily trips. Source: Solheim & Stangeby 1997

1 Trips longer than 200 m
2 Trips longer than 300 m
3 Trips as driver and passenger

On which trips do people cycle?
Another important fact when impacts are to be considered, is when cycling is used and by whom. In most countries the majority of cycle trips are short and seldom longer than 5 km. The Dutch and the Danes seem more willing to use a bike on longer distances. In Norway 47 per cent of bicycle trips are 1 km or shorter. In The Netherlands and Denmark this figure is 18 and 17 per cent respectively, cf. table 2. This fact is probably due to short distances, a flat landscape as well as a long cycle policy tradition. The total number of bicycle kilometres in millions per year in the Netherlands in 1996 was 12.5. The corresponding figure for car kilometres was 137.3 (CROW 1997).

Table 2: Length of trips by different modes in some European countries. Per cent. Source: Data from Solheim & Stangeby1997

1) The figures refer to miles, thus being different form the other countries (1 km = 1.6 mile)
2) In Finland the > 5 km figures are related to > 6 km
3) In Switzerland car passengers are included in the car driver column

One might distinguish between three types of bikers; the transport biker, the leisure biker and others. Table 3 shows that leisure bikers in Norway cycle longer distances than do other bikers. Those who use bike on their working journey also bike longer distances. Also, table 3 shows that on the average, cycle trips are shorter than car trips and longer than walking trips. Public transport has the highest share of trips longer than 5 km. It is also documented that people with driver licences and access to a car are less frequent bikers than others and that the number of daily cycle trips decrease by age. People with part time work bikes more than full time workers and men bike more than women (Solheim & Stangeby 1997).

Table 3: Trips by bike by purpose in Norway, Sweden, Great Britain and The Netherlands. Per cent. Trips shorter than 5 km. Source: Solheim & Satengeby 1997

Demand impacts
As a stand alone measure cycle routes will not result in great mode shifts, but they will probably contribute essentially to keep current bikers on wheel.

A comprehensive cycle network together with other measures intended to improve cyclists’ feeling of safety, cycle routes 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, cycle routes 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.

	= 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 cycle routes are dependent on whether or not they are implemented as comprehensive network solutions and in combination with other measures (e.g. safe crossing points) that improve safety, jf. Cycle priorities and Speed limitations.

Since public transport often is an alternative or sometimes a supplementary mode for cyclists (in the winter, when the weather is bad, for longer trips etc.) increased cycling will probably increase the number of public transport trips as well.

Demand responses in terms of change of job or living location are probably small. Change of destination for shopping might be more influenced by increased availability by cycle. 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.

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Supply impacts
An important point is that bikes require by far less space than cars, on the roads and when parked, se figure 3.

Separated cycle routes for cycling or tracks for walking and cycling can increase the area that is used for road purposes. In cities with shortage of available road space cycle routes will induce reallocation of road space. Cycle networks will often comprise stretches where the existing road supply is used to cycling, cf. Cycle lanes.

insert picture

Figure 3: Different vehicles occupy different amounts of urban space. Each picture shows 45 persons being transported. Photo: Svein Magne Fredriksen, Norwegian Ministry of Environment.

Financing requirements
The costs vary with the design of cycle routes, the available space, the terrain and whether a single stretch or a whole network is planned. The magnitude of costs for different cycle routes, (Sælensminde 2002), can be:

• A separate track for cyclist and pedestrians in Norway cost 1,000,000 EURO pr km.
  
• If cycle paths are constructed like pavements (separated vertically) the costs will be of same magnitude as pavements, i.e. 450,000 EURO pr km.

In addition, an annual maintenance cost should be included. In Norway the maintenance cost is around 4,000 EURO per km road for tracks for walking and cycling. A substantial part of this is related to winter maintenance (clearing snow and ice).

A complete cycle route net will demand substantial public funding. In Trondheim, Norway a main cycle route net of 300 km is planned. 220 km are built and the last 80 km are calculated to cost 80,000,000 EURO.

Expected impact on key policy objectives
Cycle routes will not result in great mode shifts, but might contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to reduce motorized transport together with other measures.

The impact on efficiency depends on which factors that are included in the benefit cost analysis, jfr case 3. The evaluation below includes valuation of the feeling of safety that is of a great importance for choosing the choice to cycle (Sælensminde 2002).

	= 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. Cycle routes as part of a comprehensive cycle network have a potential to reduce shorter car trips. The impacts on accessibility, social equity etc. will differ greatly between countries with different cycling tradition, cf. table 1.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected winners and losers
Construction of cycle routes and comprehensive cycle networks does not force anybody to change their travel habits, thus there is more potential for winners than losers. Reducing accidents will induce more winners than losers. The pinpointing of winners and losers will differ greatly between countries with different cycling tradition, cf. table 1.

	= weakest possible benefit,		= strongest benefit
	= weakest possible disbenefet,		= strongest possible disbenefit

= neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation
In most countries there seems to be relatively strong cultural and political barriers to the implementation of cycle routes and other cycle facilities. Actual barriers perceived by people in Austria, Finland, Italy and Spain are shown in figure 3 in Cycle lanes.

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 will probably 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 at work for decades.

= minimal barrier,

= most significant barrier