Bicycle-friendly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Utility cycling. (Discuss)

"Bicycle-friendly" describes policies and practices which may help some people feel more comfortable about traveling by bicycle with other traffic. The level of bicycle-friendliness of an environment can be influenced my many factors resulting from town planning and cycling infrastructure decisions.

Contents 1 Town planning 2 Cycling infrastructure 2.1 The CTC/IHT hierarchy 2.2 Traffic reduction 2.3 Traffic calming 2.4 One-way streets 2.5 Junction design 2.6 Traffic signals/Traffic control systems 2.7 Coexistence with other road users 2.7.1 Shared space 2.7.2 Extra wide lanes 2.7.3 Cycle lanes and cycle tracks 2.7.4 Shared Bus lanes 3 Trip-end facilities 3.1 Bicycle parking/storage arrangements 3.2 Other trip end facilities 4 Recognition 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

[edit] Town planning

Trip length and journey times can affect transport choices,^{[citation needed]} so town planning may have an impact on whether schools, shops, colleges, health clinics, public transport interchanges and other destination are within a reasonable cycling distance of the areas where people live.^{[citation needed]} If urban form influences these issues, then compact and circular settlement patterns may promote cycling. Alternatively, the low-density, non-circular (i.e., linear) settlement patterns characteristic of urban sprawl tends to discourage cycling.^{[citation needed]} In 1990, the Dutch adopted the "ABC" guidelines, specifically limiting developments that are major attractants to locations that are readily accessible by non-car users.^[1]

The manner in which the public roads network is designed, built and managed can have a significant effect on the utility and safety of cycling as transport. The key issue is whether the cycling network provides users with direct, convenient routes minimising unnecessary delay and effort in reaching key destinations.^{[citation needed]} Settlements that provide a dense roads network consisting of interconnected streets will tend to encourage cycling.

In contrast, other communities may use a cul-de-sac based, housing estate/housing subdivision model where minor roads are disconnected and only feed into a street hierarchy of progressively more "arterial" type roads. Such communities may discourage cycling by imposing unnecessary detours and forcing all cyclists onto arterial roads, which may be perceived as busy and dangerous.^{[citation needed]} There is evidence that people who live in such estates are heavier than people who live in places where walking and cycling are more convenient.^{[citation needed]} It is also reported that the extra motor-traffic such communities generate tends to increase overall per-capita traffic casualty rates.^{[citation needed]} Designs that propose to resolve the contradiction between the cul-de-sac and the traditional interconnected network, such as the Fused Grid, have been proposed and built with varying levels of success.^[2] Particular issues have arisen with personal security and public order problems in some housing schemes using "back alley" type links.^{[citation needed]}.

In the UK, the principle of 'filtered permeability' has been proposed in some Government guidance, to maximise the ease of movement of cyclists and pedestrians, whilst constraining it for motor vehicles (see: Permeability (spatial and transport planning).

[edit] Cycling infrastructure

The cycling infrastructure comprises the public ways available to cyclists. This includes the network of public roads used by other road vehicle users, minus those roads from which cyclists have been banned (most motorways or freeways), plus additional routes that are not available to other types of vehicle, such as cycle tracks and (in some jurisdictions) sidewalks.

Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist-hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based on prioritising certain routes in an attempt to create a state of constant "flow" for vehicles on that route, will tend to be hostile to those not on that route. In 1996, the British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design".^[3] This defined a hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one which encourages and facilitates cycling.

[edit] The CTC/IHT hierarchy

1. Traffic reduction. Can traffic levels, particularly of heavy vehicles, be reduced?
2. Traffic calming. Can speed be reduced and driver behaviour modified?
3. Junction treatment and traffic management. These measures include:
   • Urban traffic control systems designed to recognise cyclists and give them priority.
   • Exempt cyclists from banned turns and access restrictions.
   • Provide contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets.
   • Implement on-street parking restrictions.
   • Provide advanced stop lines/bypasses for cyclists at traffic signals.
   • Junction alterations, signalise roundabouts, cycle-friendly junction design.
4. Redistribution of the carriageway -such as by marking wide kerb lanes or shared bus/cycle lanes.
5. Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Having considered and implemented all the above, what cycle tracks or cycle lanes are considered necessary?

[edit] Traffic reduction

Removing traffic can be achieved by straightforward diversion or alternatively reduction. Diversion involves routing through-traffic away from roads used by high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians. Examples of diversion include the construction of arterial bypasses and ring roads around urban centres.

Traffic reduction can involve direct or indirect methods. A proven indirect method of reducing motor traffic, and facilitating cyclist and pedestrian use, is to adopt the shared space system. This system, by giving equal priority to all road users, and by removing conventional road markings, road signs and road conventions, capitalises on the tendency for all road users to respect and trust each-other when they are interacting on an equal basis. No explicit, or even implicit priority is given to traffic travelling along the road, so with no assumptions of priority being possible, all road users need to be aware of all other road users at all times.

New Road in Brighton was remodelled using this philosophy, and the results were a 93% reduction in motor traffic and a 22% increase in cycling traffic.^[4] Other indirect methods involve reducing the infrastructural capacity dedicated to moving or storing road vehicle. This can involve reducing the number of road lanes, closing bridges to certain vehicle types and creating vehicle restricted zones or environmental traffic cells. In the 1970s the Dutch city of Delft began restricting private car traffic from crossing the city centre^[5]. Similarly, Groningen is divided in to four zones that cannot be crossed by private motor-traffic, (private cars must use the ring road instead).^[6] Cyclists and other traffic can pass between the zones and cycling accounts for 50%+ of trips in Groningen (which reputedly has the third highest proportion of cycle traffic of any city). The Swedish city of Gothenburg uses a similar system of traffic cells.^[7] Starting in the 1970s, the city of Copenhagen, which is noted for high cycling levels, adopted a policy of reducing available car parking capacity by several per cent a year. The city of Amsterdam, where around 40% of all trips are by bicycle,^[8] adopted similar parking reduction policies in the 80s and 90s.

Direct traffic reduction methods can involve straightforward bans or more subtle methods like road pricing schemes or road diets. The London congestion charge reportedly resulted in a significant increase in cycle use within the affected area.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Traffic calming

Speed reduction has traditionally been attempted by the introduction of statutory speed limits. Traffic speeds of 30 km/h (20 mph) and lower are said to be more desirable on urban roads with mixed traffic.^[9] The Austrian city of Graz, which has achieved steady growth in cycling, has applied 30 km/h limits to 75% its streets since 1994^[10]. Speed limits which are set below the speed that most motorists perceive to be reasonable for the given road require additional measures to improve compliance. Attempts to improve speed limit observance are usually by either education, enforcement or road engineering. Education can mean publicity campaigns or targeted road user training. Speed limit Enforcement techniques include: direct police action, automated systems such as speed cameras or vehicle activated signs or traffic lights triggered by traffic exceeding a preset speed threshold. One cycling expert argues for placing direct restrictions on motor-vehicle speed and acceleration performance.^[11] An EU report on promoting walking and cycling specifies as one of its top measures comprehensive camera-based speed control using mainly movable equipment at unexpected spots.^[12] The Netherlands has an estimated 1,500 speed/red-light camera installations and has set a target for 30 km/h limits on 70% of urban roads. The UK has more than 6,000 speed-cameras, which raised more than £100 million in fines in 2006/07.^[13] Cycling has been declining in the UK in recent years.^[14] Engineering measures involve physically altering the road layout or appearance to actively, or passively slow traffic down. Measures include speed humps, chicanes, curb extensions, and living street and shared space type schemes. The town of Hilden in Germany has achieved a rate of 24% of trips being on two wheels, mainly via traffic calming and the use of 30 km/h (20 mph) zones.^[15] As of 1999, the Netherlands had over 6000 woonerven where cyclists and pedestrians have legal priority over cars and where a motorised speed limit of "walking speed" applies.^[16] However, some UK and Irish "traffic calming" schemes, particularly involving road narrowings, are viewed as extremely hostile and have been implicated directly in death and injury to cyclists.^[17][18]

Recent implementations of shared space schemes have delivered significant traffic speed reductions. The reductions are sustainable, without the need for speed limits or speed limit enforcement. In Norrköping, mean traffic speeds have dropped from 21 to 16 km/h (13 to 10 mph) since the implementation of such a scheme.^[19]

[edit] One-way streets

German research indicates that making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a reduction in the total number of collisions. ^[20] In Belgium, all one-way streets in 50 km/h zones are by default two-way for cyclists.^[21] A Danish road directorate states that in town centres it is important to be able to cycle in both directions in all streets, and that in certain circumstances, two-way cycle traffic can be accommodated in an otherwise one-way street.^[22]

[edit] Junction design

On large roundabouts of the design typically used in the UK and Ireland, cyclists have an injury accident rate that is 14-16 times that of motorists.^[23] Research indicates that excessive sightlines at uncontrolled intersections compound these effects.^[24][25] In the UK, a survey of over 8,000 highly experienced and mainly adult male Cyclists' Touring Club members found that 28% avoided roundabouts on their regular journey if at all possible.^[26]

[edit] Traffic signals/Traffic control systems

How traffic signals are designed and implemented directly impacts cyclists.^[27] For instance, poorly adjusted vehicle detector systems, used to trigger signal changes, may not correctly detect cyclists. Traffic managers in Copenhagen link cyclist-specific traffic signals on a major arterial bike lane to provide green waves for rush hour cycle-traffic.^[28] Cycling-specific measures that can be applied at traffic signals include the use of advanced stop lines and/or bypasses.

the frequency with which lights change is important to cyclists who may conserve energy by anticipating green lights ahead ie. the shorter the interval the better for cyclists

[edit] Coexistence with other road users

Several methods of altering or reallocationg the carriageway (UK) or roadway (USA) to decrease the potential for social friction during overtaking and passing have been added to many of the manuals used by designers.

[edit] Shared space

Shared space schemes, which are characterised by the removal of road markings, signs and signals, give all road users equal priority and equal responsibility for each others safety. Experiences where these schemes are in use, show that road users, particularly motorists, undirected by signs, kerbs or road markings, reduce their speed and establish eye contact with other users. Results from the thousands of such implementations worldwide all show casualty reductions and most also show reduced journey times.^[29] Following the partial conversion of London's Kensington High Street to shared space, accidents were reduced there by 44% (the London average was 17%).^[29]

[edit] Extra wide lanes

Wide kerb (nearside) lanes (UK) or Wide outside through lanes (USA) help motorists pass slower cyclists without having to decrease speed or change lanes.^[30] This method is held by some^[who?] to be particularly important on routes with a high proportion of wide vehicles, such as buses or heavy trucks. These lanes also provide more room for cyclists to filter past queues of other vehicles in congested conditions. The use of such lanes is specifically endorsed by Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities, the European Commission policy document on cycle promotion.^[31]

Cycle friendly infrastructure argues for a marked lane width of 4.25 m (14 ft).^[3] It is argued^[who?] that, on undivided roads, this width provides cyclists with adequate clearance from passing wide vehicles while being sufficiently narrow to deter motorists from attempting to “double up” and form two lanes. This “doubling up” effect may be related to junctions. At non-junction locations, greater width might be preferable if this effect can be avoided.

[edit] Cycle lanes and cycle tracks

Main article: Segregated cycle facilities

Roads or paths which are not suitable for motorized traffic can benefit cyclists by providing more pleasant and efficient ways on which to travel than the main road network. Examples include greenways and routes through pedestrian precincts. In contrast are facilities within the right-of-way of public roads which are intended to separate cyclists as a class from other travelers (i.e., to segregate them). While segregated cycle facilities such as cycle lanes and cycle tracks are often advocated as a means of reducing anxiety about cycling near motorists, their effects on safety, cycling promotion, and the right of individuals to travel freely is controversial.

[edit] Shared Bus lanes

The sharing of Bus lanes by both bus and bicycle traffic has been described as "generally very popular" with cyclists.^[32] Guidance produced for Cycling England endorses bus lanes as providing cyclists with a direct and barrier free route into town centres and as avoiding the difficulties associated with other provisions such as shared-use footways. ^[33] According to a French survey 42% of cyclists described themselves as "enthusiasts" for shared bus bike lanes versus 33% who were of mixed opinion and 27% who were opposed. ^[34] Many cycling activists view these as being more attractive than cycle paths, while others object to being in close proximity to bus exhausts. ^[34]

As of 2003, mixed bus/cycle lanes accounted for 118km of the 260km of cycling facilities in Paris. ^[35] The French city of Bordeaux has 40km of shared bus cycle lanes. ^[36] It is reported that that in the city of Bristol, a showcase bus priority corridor, where road space was re-allocated along a 14km stretch also resulted in more space for cyclists and had the effect of increasing cycling.^[37] The reverse effect has also been suggested, a review carried out in London reports that cycling levels fell across Kew bridge following the removal of a bus lane - this was despite a general increase in cycling level in the city generally.^[38] In addition, it is arguably easier, politically speaking, to argue for funding of joint facilities rather than the additional expense of both segregated cycling facilities and bus-only lanes.^{[39] [40]}

In some instances. bus lane proposals have run into vehement opposition from cyclists reps - a typical theme is the perceived generation of conflict due to the narrowing of other lanes already shared by cars/cyclists so as to create space for the bus lanes^[41] The TRL reports that cyclists and bus drivers tend to have low opinions of each other^[32] There have been reports in Dublin of conflict as cyclists choose to cycle in the bus lanes and a bus driver apparently expected them to use adjacent cycle tracks instead.^[42] In some other cities the arrangements seem to work successfully, with bus companies and cyclists' groups taking active steps to ensure that understanding is improved between the two groups of road users. ^[43][40][44]

[edit] Trip-end facilities

[edit] Bicycle parking/storage arrangements

Secure parking is argued to be a key factor influencing the decision to cycle.^[45] To be considered secure, the parking must be of a suitable design: allowing the bicycle to be locked via the frame. A readily observable location can also permit so-called passive security from passers-by. Weather protection is also desirable. As a rule, where cycling is encouraged as an alternative to motoring, efforts are made to make bicycle parking more convenient and attractive to use than nearby car parking arrangements. This usually means providing a wide distribution of visible, clearly designated parking spots, close to the entrances of destinations being served.

Storage rooms or bicycle lockers may also be provided. In some cases large concentrations of bike parking may be more appropriate, sometimes being supervised and sometimes charging a fee. Examples include large bike parks at public transport interchanges such as railway, subway, tram or bus stations.^[46]

Conversely, where cycling is seen as an unwelcome or inappropriate activity, bicycle parking may simply not be provided or else deliberately placed at awkward, out-of-sight, locations away from public view.^[47] Cyclists may even be expressly forbidden from parking their bicycles at the most obvious and convenient locations. In April 2007, the authorities at the University of California's Santa Barbara campus started confiscating bicycles not parked at the allegedly inconvenient official bike racks^[48]

[edit] Other trip end facilities

Some people need to wear special clothes such as business suits or uniforms in their daily work. In some cases the nature of the cycling infrastructure and the prevailing weather conditions may make it very hard to both cycle and maintain the work clothes in a presentable condition. It is argued that such workers can be encouraged to cycle by providing lockers, changing rooms and shower facilities where they can change before starting work.^[49]

[edit] Recognition

In the U.S., the League of American Bicyclists has formally recognized some cities as Bicycle-friendly communities for "providing safe accommodation and facilities for bicyclists and encouraging residents to bike for transportation and recreation."

[edit] See also

• Bicycle safety
• Bicycle transportation engineering
• Road safety

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Yellow Bike program in Austin, Texas supports transportation by bike
• Human Transport and Bicycle Driving advocates for the right to travel by human power (Steven G. Goodridge)
• Bicycle City advocates for car-free cities (Kara Kelly)