Cycle network and route planning guide

The principles of cycle network planning

Print version: Chapter 5: Possible cycle network approaches (PDF, 79 KB, 4 pages)

Possible cycle network approaches

5.1 Introduction

This section describes five approaches to developing a cycle route network:

• every street
• roads or paths
• dual networks
• hierarchy approach
• needs approach.

5.2 Every street

Every street is a bicycle street (Geelong Bikeplan Study Steering Committee, 1977). Cyclists’ trip origins and destinations are as complex as those of car drivers, and they use all streets to access activities beside them. Whether or not such streets have specific cycling facilities, cyclists’ needs must be considered. This principle applies to all approaches to network planning.

If all streets and intersections provide quality cycling conditions, it is not necessary to provide for primary cycle routes. In practice, roads are arranged in a hierarchy so that longer-distance traffic is concentrated on higher-standard routes. This is done for efficiency and to manage traffic effects on the enjoyment of adjoining land and vice versa. This usually requires a similar arrangement of provision for cycling.

5.3 Roads or paths

Fundamental issue in cycle planning is the degree to which cycle facilities will be segregated from motor traffic. There are several kinds of separation, such as:

• isolated paths
• paths next to roads separated by kerbs, islands or nature strips
• marked space on the roadway, such as cycle lanes and road shoulders
• fully shared mixed road space.

Section 6 discusses the detailed merits of each in more detail.

While primary cycle networks may be based on one type of facility, most cycle networks contain a mixture of different facility types.

5.3.1 Segregated networks of cycle paths

It is only practical to consider a fully segregated primary cycle network when planning new suburbs and townships.

The aim of such networks is to provide pleasant, off-road cycle paths free of conflict from motorised traffic that serve all areas. An outstanding example is Houten, a satellite town of Utrecht in The Netherlands, where 16 neighbourhoods are accessed by car from a fast circumferential ring road. Motor vehicles can only travel between zones via the ring road. Within neighbourhoods, cyclists and motorists share the use of slow-speed (30 km/h) streets. Neighbourhoods are joined by a spine of cycle and walking paths that provide much shorter routes than for motor traffic. As a result, 44 percent of trips less than 7.5 km long are made by bicycle and 23 percent by walking. Traffic crash risk is half that of comparable towns.

Other examples of full segregation have not been so successful. Milton Keynes (United Kingdom) suffered from sub-standard path design that has a poor safety record, and has failed to achieve higher modal share by cycling (Franklin, 1999). Canberra’s system also failed to live up to the expected benefits with only three percent of trips to work made by bicycle. This is largely due to a high quality of provision for cars and a lack of directness and coherence in the cycle path network for utility cycling. Canberra is now retrofitting a primary cycle network to the arterial roads.

5.3.2 Road-based networks

Land use in already-existing towns makes it impractical to develop an off-road path network, so cycle networks are based around the established network of (mostly arterial) roads. There remains the issue of whether to provide a physically separated path beside the roadway.

Places such as Sweden, and Copenhagen in Denmark, have made an expensive commitment to redesigning arterial roads to provide cycle paths on berms behind relocated kerbs. More recently, and where there has not been enough funding to build cycle paths, some European towns have tried cycle lanes as an interim measure and found them successful.

5.3.3 General considerations

Many factors influence whether roads or paths will best suit cyclists’ needs. For example:

• increased segregation from motor traffic is usually accompanied by increased interference from pedestrians, pets, skateboarders, slower cyclists etc
• one choice is not inherently safer than another; both can be hazardous and both require high-quality design to achieve safety — ‘the devil is in the detail’. Paths tend to be safer between intersections as long as there is room for adequate design and minimal crossing-driveway traffic
• cycling through a junction on the roadway is generally safer than from a path. Junctions between paths and busier roads generally require traffic calming or signals
• at junctions between paths and roads, New Zealand law requires cyclists on the path to give way, which reduces cyclist LOS
• geometric design standards for roads are often higher than for paths
• it is incorrect to suggest that roads can only satisfy commuters’ needs, or that paths cannot satisfy commuter cyclists’ needs. Most leisure cycling takes place on roads, and many commuters enjoy well located paths
• a road is not necessarily less expensive to maintain but will often benefit through existing pavement management systems
• it is usually easier and less expensive to accommodate the needs of commuter cyclists on roads than on separate paths
• the freedom from traffic danger and fumes brings obvious benefits for recreation cycling and novices (Dorrestyn, 1996a).
• it is difficult to provide a coherent and direct path system that is as convenient for commuters as the arterial road network
• where origins and destinations are on the same side of an arterial road, a two-way cycle path means cyclists don’t have to cross the road twice to get there. However, such two-way paths are generally not recommended.

5.3.4 Relative advantages

Subject to appropriate design standards being achieved, roads generally have the following advantages over paths.

They are:

• direct
• coherent
• convenient
• efficient
• available everywhere

and also:

• have established intersection controls
• serve well the needs of experienced cyclists
• have high levels of surveillance and therefore personal security.

Between intersections, isolated paths generally have the following advantages over roads. They have:

• no motor traffic
• slower speeds
• low stress
• an attractive environment

and also:

• provide extra links that advantage all cyclists
• serve well the needs of novice/child cyclists.

Depending on the circumstances and design detail, there is usually no clear advantage between roads and paths in relation to:

• safety
• conflict with other users
• expense
• maintenance.

5.4 Dual networks

Description

Dual networks provide two different types of cycle route network - for instance, one based on urban arterial roads, the other comprising cycle paths or backstreets.

Dual networks are sometimes provided within one road reserve. For example, a cycle path may be appropriate where it provides a short link for primary school aged children near shops or a school, even though it is beside an arterial road with cycle lanes.

A rural road may have a sealed shoulder suitable for experienced and sporting cyclists, but a path may also be provided for less experienced cyclists.

Advantages

Some cyclists value off-road and backstreet options more than others. By providing choice, each can choose
what suits them.

Even experienced cyclists will value more pleasant alternatives as long as they are still direct. As a rule of thumb, a 10 percent extra journey time has been suggested as sometimes acceptable (Hudson, 1982).

Disadvantages

Where a dual network is provided within one road reserve, motorists may not expect cyclists to be riding on the road as well as on a path. This can compromise safety, especially when crossing driveways and side roads.

Dual network provision also costs more and may be seen politically as oversupply, especially if an element involves a significant difficulty or cost (financial, or to other road users).

Recommendation

Dual networks should be considered where the extra cost is outweighed by the benefits to cyclists.

If only one network can be funded, the LOS provided by each option to the different cyclist groups should be assessed. Consultation with cyclists over the choice will be important.

Having a path next to a roadway should not automatically exclude cyclists from using the road instead. On-road bans should only be instigated after assessing whether the paths and roadway meet the needs of all users in terms of technical standards. Other factors to consider include:

• the potential for delay and confusion at intersections and driveways
• the adequacy of sight distances and shoulder or lane widths
• the adequacy of the path condition and width
• the potential for conflict with other path users
• the relative LOS for cyclists of different skills.

5.5 Hierarchy approach

Description

Cycle routes are sometimes assigned to hierarchies based on trip length and user type. For example, cycle routes in regional or district networks may be classified as regional, inter-urban or tourist, while cycle routes in a large urban area may be classified as principal, collector or local.

Principal routes are for longer-distance movement, are direct with minimal delays and may even be separated from motor traffic to provide a ‘motorway’ LOS for cyclists. Collector routes distribute cycle traffic between the principal routes and local origins and destinations (Cumming, 1996).

Some urban cycle route hierarchies aim to provide a designated cycle route within 100 m of each home (such as in Delft, The Netherlands).

Advantages

Hierarchies can be used to assign implementation priorities (so that routes higher in the hierarchy are implemented first) and can be linked to design standards (so that more important routes provide a better LOS).

Disadvantage

A cycle route hierarchy will not work if using it involves significant detours.

Recommendation

Consider using cycle route hierarchies for setting target design standards, LOS and implementation priorities.

5.6 Needs approach

This approach involves choosing the option that best provides for cyclists’ needs in each situation.

It aims to achieve the best results for cyclists and other stakeholders within the context of all the prevailing opportunities and constraints. It may include any of the options or locations in this guide, as well as dual provision over some sections if it is needed and feasible.

When deciding on facilities that best meet cyclist needs, it is important to remember that each situation is different. Space limitations, cost and other constraints usually dictate one solution over another.

This guide recommends comparing the route options for each situation on their merits, and over the following pages provides processes and tools for developing, evaluating and comparing these options. Note that facilities within an area should be consistent so that users know what behaviour is expected of them, and so they can reliably predict the behaviour of others.

Recommendation

Adopt the needs approach, but aim for consistent facility standards.

5.7 General recommendations for new and existing areas

Below are some suggestions for applying these approaches in various situations.

5.7.1 New areas

Design neighbourhood streets for slow, mixed traffic.

Ensure cycling and walking networks are more closely spaced and permeable than motor traffic networks; add traffic-free links to achieve this. Ideally provisions for cyclists should be spaced less than 600 m apart.

Position paths in parks and reserves so that they link homes to significant local destinations such as schools and community facilities, and so that children and novices do not have to mix with faster or busier traffic.

Use paths to link communities along and across the barriers of busy roads.

Successful examples show a commitment to high-quality design, grade separation at main obstacles such as major roads, and careful attention to connections to the road network and across it.

5.7.2 Existing areas

Existing road hierarchies usually provide the basis for a primary cycle network.

Use the cycle planning process to identify places where people already cycle, and look for new opportunities of all the types of facilities described in this guide.

Develop options to improve the on-road provision and seek alternatives that will bypass obstacles or hazards or provide new, convenient links or alternatives for less competent cyclists.

Pay particular attention to intersections.

Consider the network needs of neighbourhood cyclists in their local environments.

Integrate with school travel planning initiatives and local area traffic management planning.

< previous | next >

Page created: 29 September 2004
Last updated: 17 May 2007