| Segregated Cycle Facilities |
Shopping Facilities |
Website Links For Cycle |
Information AboutSegregated Cycle Facilities |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT SEGREGATED CYCLE FACILITIES | |
| road infrastructure | |
| cycling | |
| urban studies and planning | |
| transportation planning | |
| cycling safety | |
|
CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC - please read the talk page discussion before making substantial changes -->Segregated cycle facilities may consist of a separate Road , track, path or lane that is designated for use by Cyclist s 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". 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 interpreted as competing Ideological Doctrines , engineering "truths", or attempts to avoid violating a social Taboo of failing to provide a clear path to faster motorists 10 . The use of such devices has been a source of a great deal of controversy since the 1930s. 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. TERMINOLOGY Off Road: Cycleways/Bike Paths The term Cycleway ( UK & Ireland ) or '''Bike Path''' (or '''Bike Trail''') ("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. In some cases, pedestrians and cyclist traffic are expected to share the same road section. In the latter case, the term multi-user path (often abbreviated MUP, or MUT for multi-user trail) or recreational path may sometimes be used instead. Off Road: Cycle track/Sidepath In the U.S, a Sidepath is used to denote a footway or sidewalk type structure that has been designated for use by cyclists and is attached to an existing roadway, but does not include bicycle lanes. 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. [http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_028709.hcsp UK Department of Transport Legal Definition]. An existing footway that is converted for shared use by cyclists and pedestrians is known as a Shared use footway and will usually be to a lower standard than a cycle track. While cyclists on a shared use footway must give priority to pedestrians, on a cycle track cyclists are the primary users. 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
Explanatory note: Terminology For the purpose of accurate discussion this article observes the following conventions.
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 . {Link without Title} 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 organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to used such devices [http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/1935.html 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 actually began removing the cycle tracks so as to provide more car parking capacity. 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, 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 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. 1 , UK 2 , Germany , Sweden 3 , Denmark 4 , and Finland 5 , 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 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 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 Signal s for bicycle traffic. This can get extremely complex, particularly if there are already separate traffic signal phases for Pedestrian s, motorised traffic and Public Transport modes such as Tram s and/or Bus es. 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" {Link without Title} . 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 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 sceptics 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. 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 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 contrast, 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 6 . Evidence Internationally, the evidence of cyclist numbers does not appear to support claims for such an inherent cycle promotion effect. Between the late '80s and early '90s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (the equivalent of US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure. However, this vast investment failed to produce any practical increase in cycling levels 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 has 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 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
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING Notes
Additional reading
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|