Cycle lanes and priorities first principles assessment

First principles assessment

Why introduce cycle lanes and other cycle priority measures?

Introduction

This section is set out as follows:

the varying levels of cycling in different countries are first illustrated;
followed by evidence demonstrating that part of the explanation for some countries having far lower levels of cycling than others is due to lack of investment in cycle infrastructure generally, and specifically in cycle lanes and priority measures; and
finally, evidence is presented demonstrating that increasing levels of cycling is a desirable outcome. The benefits of cycling in terms of efficiency, environment and health are set out.

Differences in cycling levels between countries

The table below gives an overview of the modal split in some European countries. Cycling tends to be more frequent in medium or smaller cities than in larger cities.

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

Country	Year*	On foot	Cycle	Car as driver	Car as passenger	Public transport	All trips	Cycle mode share
Norway	1991/92	0.66	0.20	1.70	0.39	0.26	3.25	6.1%
Sweden	1994/95	0.48	0.37	1.25	0.50	0.33	2.93	12.6%
Finland	1992	0.39	0.22	1.66	0.42	0.25	2.97	7.4%
Denmark	1992	0.30	0.50	1.40	0.30	0.30	2.90	17.2%
Great Britain	1992/94	0.84	0.05	1.07	0.63	0.25	2.88	1.7%
The Netherlands	1994	0.67	1.01	1.28	0.51	0.19	3.74	27%
Germany	1989	0.79	0.34	1.06	0.34	0.28	2.82	12%
Austria (Ober)	1992	0.55	0.18	1.41 3	-	0.37	2.59	7%
Switzerland	1989	0.75	0.33	1.72 3	-	0.46	3.50	9.4%
France-Grenoble	1992	0.98	0.16	1.48	0.45	0.48	3.58	4.4%
France-Lyon	1985	1.15	0.06	1.23	0.38	0.47	3.31	1.8%

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

The United States, unlike several European countries, does not have a long cycling tradition. However, cycling levels have increased significantly since the 1970s.

Annual US Bicycle Trips and Bicycle Mode Share, 1977- 1995 (NPTS, DoT)

	1977	1983	1990	1995
Bicycle trips (millions)	1272	1792	1750	3141
Adjusted bicycle trips (millions)	1476	2078	2030	3141
Bicycle mode share (%)	0.6%	0.8%	0.7%	0.9%
Car mode share (%)	83.9%	85.0%	87.1%	89.3%
Transit mode share (%)	2.4%	2.2%	2.0%	1.8%
Walking mode share (%)	9.3%	8.5%	7.2%	5.5%

There are great differences between 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 feet." (Danish 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.

Will cycle lanes increase levels of cycling?

As noted above, there are a variety of explanations for the varying levels of cycling between countries. However, the evidence below indicates that investment in cycling infrastructure, and in particular the on-road network, has a part to play in encouraging cycling levels.

In the EU project WALCYNG (How to enhance WALking and CycliNG instead of shorter car trips, and to make these modes safer) people were asked to give their opinion on barriers to cycling and important measures to increase cycling. The figure "barriers to walking and cycling by modal category" below shows that nearly 50% of “walcers” (walkers and cyclists) mention lack of a sufficient on-road cycle network as a barrier for cycling (Stangeby 1997), whilst the equivalent figure for car drivers was over 50%. Among commuters in Norway 30% responded that cycle lanes [and routes] were the most important measure to stimulate cycling.

Barriers to cycling by modal category. Attitude surveys in Austria, Finland, Italy and Spain. Per cent.( Walcer= walkers + cyclists) Source: WALCYNG Stangeby 1997

A=bad signing of cycle routes
B=bad upkeep of cycle paths
C=insufficient cycle road network
D=high speed of car traffic
E=non-ability of transporting heavy things
F=car noise and pollution
G=feeling of unsafety
H=pedestrians on the way

I=unattractive surroundings
J=Weather
K=fear of theft, lack of secure parking
L=ruthlessness of car drivers
M=badly constructed traffic lights, long waiting times
N=Laziness
O=Other
Copyright © TOI

Opinions on the most important improvements that can make people start using a cycle. Per cent. The Norwegian Marketing/SP-survey among commuters. Source: WALCYNG Stangeby 1997 (261 people surveyed)

Improvement	Percent
More cycling lanes	30%
Less car traffic	17%
Secure bicycle parking	13%
Smoother road surface	11%
Lower kerbs	11%
Subways/crossings	8%
Traffic lights at crossings	4%
Better road signs and markings	1%
Other improvements	6%

Why encourage cycling?

Cycling is an environmentally friendly (clean and silent), healthy, cheap and flexible transport mode. In many European cities, cyclists lack space and other facilities and cycling induces conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians.

The table below provides a comparison of various transport modes from an ecological viewpoint with a private car for an identical journey with the same number of person kilometres. As can be seen, cycling compares extremely well with all other modes on every category. The figure for accident risk is far lower than that reflected in accident statistics. This is because the figure excludes accidents that are caused by collision with motorised modes. The figure therefore represents the intrinsic danger involved in cycling in a traffic-free environment.

Comparison of ecological impact of various modes for a journey involving a given number of person kilometres (European Commission 1999)

Cycling journey speeds

Cycling in urban areas is also efficient in terms of total journey speeds, as is illustrated by the table below. Cycling tends to be quicker than any other mode up to a journey length of 8 km. Clearly, the relative speeds will vary according to location and time of day.

Comparative Table of Journey Speeds in the Urban Environment (European commission, 1999)

Cycling is also a highly effective mode in combination with public transport. Assuming a cycling speed of 20 km an hour and a walking speed of 5 km an hour, cycling can increase the catchment area of a public transport interchange by a factor of 15. This means that 60% of the UK population live within 15 minutes cycle ride of a rail station (Gazey & Ades, 1998).

Health benefits of cycling

The figure below shows the impact that exercise levels have on mortality risk. The table shows the results of evidence from various sources on the impact of moderate exercise on the incidence of various diseases.

Effect on the relative mortality risk from changes in the level of physical activity (Ege & Krag, 2005)

Potential disease reduction by moderate exercise, in percent (Ege & Krag, 2005)

In many developed countries childhood obesity is becoming an ever more serious health problem. The figure below shows the prevalence of overweight children at 10 years old along with the levels of cycling in those countries. For the selected North European countries there is a strong negative correlation between these two criteria suggesting a correlation between cycling activity and lower childhood obesity.

Prevalence of overweight children and cycling levels in selected North European countries (Ege & Krag, 2005. Source DfT)

Comparison of exposure to pollution by car and by cycle

There are concerns that cycling in traffic will not be beneficial to health because of the exposure to emissions. There is no doubt that if possible it is healthier to cycle in traffic-free conditions. However, if the choice is between cycling in traffic or driving then the evidence seems to indicate that exposure is lower whilst cycling even after taking into account the cyclists' increased breathing rate. The results of a Dutch (top) and Danish (bottom) study are presented in the figure below. The explanation for cyclists’ exposure being significantly lower than that for car drivers is because cyclists tend to be situated on the edge of the road and at a higher level where pollutant concentrations are significantly lower than closer to the ground in the middle of the carriageway which is where the air intake for most vehicles is positioned.

Exposure to pollutants by bicycle and in a car (Ege & Krag, 2005)

Increasing levels of cycling improves safety

Cycle lanes and priority measures can be expected to significantly reduce accidents. The Institution of Highways and Transportation estimates that remedial works at junctions can reduce casualty rates by 30% to 60% (IHT, 1997).

Furthermore, increasing levels of cycling tend to be associated with lower pedestrian and cyclist deaths per inhabitant per year as is illustrated in the figure below. This indicates that absolute numbers of deaths to walkers and cyclists tend to drop as cycling levels increase. Measures that encourage cycling tend to improve safety for both pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, the presence of significant numbers of cyclists tends to improve awareness and reduce speeds of car drivers.

Modal share of cycling and pedestrian and cycle casualties (TfL, 2004)

Further evidence to this effect is shown in the examples illustrated below of Holland and Denmark where increases in the level of cycling have been accompanied by significant reductions in both the absolute number of accidents and accidents per kilometre cycle.

Increase in cycling levels and drop in the level of risk in the Netherlands 1980-1998 (Ege & Krag 2005)

Increase in cycling levels and drop in absolute numbers of serious injuries to cyclists in Denmark from 1990 to 2000 (Ege & Krag 2005)

In most countries cycling is significantly more dangerous than travelling by car. However, when cycling reaches levels seen in the Netherlands and Denmark the total accident risk is at least comparable. The table below compares the risk of driving and cycling. The figures have been corrected for two factors to create a more accurate comparison:

A factor is applied to exclude motorway driving because motorway journeys cannot be compared with cycle journeys; and
A factor is applied to reflect the risk that car miles present to other road users (the equivalent figure for cyclists is negligible).

A further issue that should be noted regarding the statistics presented here is that killed and seriously injured statistics would be significantly higher for cycling compared to driving than these overall accident statistics. On the other hand, casualties per trip (arguably a more accurate comparison) would appear far more favourable to cycling. Furthermore, if child casualties were removed from the statistics (a category that does not exist for car drivers) then the casualty rates for cyclists would be reduced.

Comparison of Risk of accidents per million kilometres for motorists and cyclists in the Netherlands (European Commission, 1999)

Age group	Motorists (drivers)	Cyclists
12-14	-	16.8
15-17	-	18.2
18-24	33.5	7.7
25-29	17.0	8.2
30-39	9.7	7.0
40-49	9.7	9.2
50-59	5.9	17.2
60-64	10.4	32.1
64+	39.9	79.1
All ages	20.8	21.0

Whatever method of comparison is chosen it is clear that health benefits significantly outweigh accident risks. Hillman has attempted to quantify this by weighing up the life-years gained by cyclists in Britain due to improved health, versus the life-years they lose through fatal injuries. He concluded that the health benefits of cycling, even in the relatively unsafe UK, outweigh the risks involved by a factor of around 20:1 (Hillman 1993). The British Medical Association drew similar general conclusions and stated that the "benefits [of cycling] to health…are frequently overlooked ... the British Medical Association highlights the significant contribution cycling can make to the nation's health and calls for radical changes in current transport policy"(BMA, 1992).

Demand Impacts

The responses to cycle lanes and priority measures 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 such as lower speed limits.

Responses and situations

Response	Reduction in road traffic	Expected in situations
		Cycle lanes and priorities are likely to increase journey speed and reliability which is likely to allow a later departure.
		Cyclists may change route in order to use a cycle lane and safe junctions rather than ride on a route that has no provision for cyclists.
		Improved mobility by cycle might result in greater use of local facilities and thus shorter shopping trips in the long run.
		Total trips may actually increase with the improved quality of cycling provision. Possible reductions in capacity for cars may reduce car trips.
		Cycle lanes and priority may encourage mode switch from car and public transport to cycle especially on shorter trips.
		Comprehensive implementation of high-quality cycle lanes and priority measures may influence car purchase decisions.
		The quality of the journey to work and other key destinations may be a consideration in relocation decisions.

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

= No response

Short and long run demand responses

Demand responses

Response	-	1st year	2-4 years	5 years	10+ years
	-
	-
	Change job location
-	Shop elsewhere
	Possible generation of cycling trips
-	Possible suppression of some car trips due to reduced vehicle capacity
	From car to cycling
-	From Public transport to cycling
-	From walking to cycling
	-
	-

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

= No response

Supply impacts

Cycle priorities may reduce the capacity for other traffic slightly, particularly at junctions.

If cycle lanes do succeed in encouraging mode shift from car then this may well have a positive impact on the road space that is available for other road users because cycles are significantly more efficient than private cars in terms of space efficiency.

Financing requirements

The tables below are taken from London Cycling Design Standards. It should be noted that construction costs in London tend to be higher than the rest of the UK. Costs can be significantly reduced if a facility is implemented as part of other works such as road resurfacing.

Global Costs of Various Types of Cycle Facility (London)

Expected impact on key policy objectives

In countries that currently have a very low level of cycling, the contribution to objectives that cycling is likely to make in the short-term is significantly less than in countries with more cycling. This is because take-up of cycling is a gradual process which tends to be particularly slow at lower levels of cycling.

Objective	Scale of contribution	Comment
		Cycling is space efficient, relatively fast and uses few natural resources and is as such highly efficient - especially over shorter to medium length journeys.
		Increased levels of cycling and cycle priority measures tend to reduce the speed and possibly the quantity of traffic. Cycle lanes and advanced stop lines also increase the distance between pedestrians and motorised traffic. Safer roads for cycling will also discourage cycling on the pavement, a further benefit for pedestrians.
		If reducing car use, cycle routes will reduce air and noise pollution.
		Some groups of people with lower incomes may benefit due to improved amenity and safety of walking and cycling.
		Cycle lanes and priorities will improve safety for cyclists particularly as cycling levels increase because accident rates per kilometre cycled invariably fall as cycling levels increase.
		The existence of cycling as a viable alternative may significantly reduce journey times to work so possibly increasing productivity and any decongestion impacts may improve productivity still further. These benefits may also encourage workers to locate in a particular area. Furthermore, reduced absenteeism and lower health care costs resulting from cycling provide an economic boost.
		Public funding is needed because there is no obvious mechanism by which cyclists can pay directly for use of lanes. Costs are relatively low compared to most other types of infrastructure. Transfer from car will reduce tax revenues from taxation on car use. The impact of transfer from public transport will depend on whether the public transport system is running at or close to capacity. If the subsidised public transport system is crowded then transfer to bicycle may well reduce the need for public transport investment and so provide a financial benefit. If the system is underused and reduced patronage may represent a financial disbenefit.

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

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

Contribution to alleviation of key problems

Problem	Scale of contribution	Comment
Congestion-related delay		In the short-term some measures may reduce capacity and so possibly increase congestion but as take-up of cycling increases it is likely to contribute to a reduction in congestion.
Congestion-related unreliability		In the short-term some measures may reduce capacity and so possibly increase congestion but as take-up of cycling increases it is likely to contribute to a reduction in congestion.
Community severance		In the short-term some measures may reduce capacity and so possibly increase congestion but as take-up of cycling increases it is likely to contribute to a reduction in congestion.
Visual intrusion		By reducing traffic volumes.
Lack of amenity		By reducing traffic volumes and possibly speeds, and increasing distance between pedestrians and motorised traffic.
Global warming		By reducing traffic-related CO2 emissions.
Local air pollution		By reducing emissions of NOx, particulates and other local pollutants.
Noise		By reducing traffic volumes and possibly speeds.
Reduction of green space		If there is transfer from car there will be reduced pressure for low density city expansion, new road building and car parks.
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites		By reducing traffic volumes.
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments		Better accessibility for those people without a car that may be able to cycle. Some mobility-impaired individuals may have difficulty walking significant distances but are better able to cycle.
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups		Cycling offers increased accessibility to those without a car available.
Number, severity and risk of accidents		By reducing traffic volumes and reducing conflict between cyclists and motorised vehicles.
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area		The existence of cycling as a viable alternative may significantly reduce journey to work times, so possibly increasing productivity. Any decongestion impacts may improve productivity still further. These benefits may also encourage workers to locate in a particular area. Furthermore, reduced absenteeism and lower health care costs resulting from cycling.

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

= No contribution

Expected winners and losers

Winners and losers

Group	Winners / losers	Comment
Large scale freight and commercial traffic		Some measures may reduce vehicle capacity which may increase congestion in the short-term but the longer term effect is likely to be reduced congestion.
Small businesses		Small, local businesses can benefit from trade from passing cyclists and improved local access. Cycle lanes may require car parking spaces to be taken out or be relocated.
High income car-users		No significant impacts known.
People with a low income		Cycling is low cost transport.
People with poor access to public transport		Cycle provisions that connect to main public transport hubs by increases catchment area.
All existing public transport users		In continental cities high public transport use normally correlates with high cycle use.
People living adjacent to the area targeted		Improvements/reduction of car traffic and public realm improvements which often are implemented along with the introduction of cycle lanes will benefit people living locally. Cycle lanes may require car parking spaces to be reduced or charges introduced to make supply meet demand locally.
People making high value, important journeys		Cycling is generally the fastest and most reliable mode for peak hour trips between 1-3km in congested urban areas, e.g. if catching a long-distance train for a graduate job interview.
The average car user		Slight positive and negative local impacts for car users possible.

Barriers to implementation

Scale of barriers

Barrier	Scale	Comment
Legal		One legal barrier in the UK and possibly elsewhere which discourages local authorities from providing facilities is the fear that they will be subject to legal claims for compensation for any accidents.
Finance		Cyclists do not pay directly for use of facilities and so all funding must come from general taxation. Costs are relatively low compared to most other types of transport infrastructure.
Political		If cycling levels are low then authorities are likely to be criticised for spending money on unused facilities - a cultural change, whereby cycling increases significantly, tends to take lengths of time which are often beyond the planning horizon of politicians focused on the next election.
Feasibility		Cycling facilities are unlikely to be technically unfeasible.