International Cycling Infrastructure, Best Practice Study, Phil Jones

Lessons from:
International Cycling Infrastructure –
Best Practice Study

• To visit cities with high levels of cycling/cycling growth
• To compare good practice for cycle infrastructure
• Study to be used by TfL to inform:
• LCDS;
• Better Junctions programme;
• training for TfL & Borough officers;
• evidence base for discussion with DfT
• Wider target audience of:
• TfL & Borough designers/consultants;
• senior TfL/GLA/Borough decision-makers;
• other cycling partners (e.g. LCC, Sustrans);
• Civil servants
• Local and national politicians

• Amsterdam
• Utrecht
• Berlin
• Munich
• Stockholm
• Malmo
• Copenhagen
• Dublin
• Nantes
• Seville
• Cambridge
• Brighton-Hove
• New York
• Minneapolis
• Washington DC
LONDON
sq km
219
99
894
312
382
159
616
114
528
140
117
88
788
151
177
1,580
Pop 000s
810
324
3,450
1,400
1,370
307
1,231
525
590
703
124
273
8,300
393
647
8,308
Density
3,700
3,300
3,900
4,500
3,600
1,900
2,000
4,600
1,100
5,000
1,100
3,100
10,500
2,600
3,600
5,300
Cycle m/s
~40%
~33%
~15%
~18%
~10%
~25%
~26%
~6%
~5%
~6%
32% jtw
5.4% jtw
~1.5%
~5%
~3% jtw
~2%

Allen & Pike Streets
Set the Footprint,
Then Set the Curbs

1
There is strong, clear political and technical
pro-cycling leadership which is supported
through all parts of the lead organisation.

2
Cycling is considered an entirely legitimate,
everyday, ‘grown up’ mode of transport, worthy
of investment, even if current cycling levels are
comparatively low.

3
Increasing cycle mode share is part of an
integrated approach to decreasing car mode
share. There is no intended overall abstraction
from walking and public transport; and
improving cycle safety and convenience is not
intended to diminish pedestrian safety and
convenience.

4
Loss of traffic capacity or parking to create
better cycling facilities can be a considerable
challenge, but is not a veto.

5
There is dedicated, fit-for-purpose space for
cycling, generally free of intrusion by heavy
and fast motor vehicle traffic.
In cities where the aim is to grow cycling
rapidly, simple, cheap and effective means of
securing this space have been used as first
steps, with more permanent solutions following
in due course.

6
There is clarity about the overall cycling
network (including planned future
development), with connectedness, continuity,
directness and legibility all being key attributes.

There are three principal types of cycle facility
on links which make up well-planned and
designed networks and are all important and
legitimate:
• Facilities on busier streets which provide
appropriate separation from motor vehicles.
• Quiet streets with 30kph/20mph or lower speed
limits and often restrictions on through traffic.
• ‘Greenways’ away from the main highway (e.g.
traffic-free streets, paths in parks, etc.)
7

8
There is clear, widely-accepted and routinely-used
guidance on the design of cycling
infrastructure.

9
The frequency of occasions when cyclists
need to yield or stop is minimised. This means
that people cycling are able to make steady
progress at a comfortable speed.

10
At least subjectively, where the cycle mode
share is greater, the driving culture (and
indeed city culture generally) is more
respectful of the needs of cyclists. Local traffic
laws often play a part in this.

11
Making good provision for cycling, even in the
most well-cycled cities, is an ongoing
challenge; with growth in cycling, and of city
populations as a whole, requiring clear forward
planning.

LINKS
• Basic fitness for purpose
• Separation options
• Cycleways away from traffic
• Bi-directional lanes/tracks
• Minor side street crossings
• Addressing pinch-points
• Offside parking/loading bays
JUNCTIONS + CROSSINGS
• ASLs
• Cycle-specific signals
• Two-stage turns
• Minimising ‘left-hooks’
• Cycle exemptions at red
• ‘Simultaneous greens’
• Cycle-friendly roundabouts
• Parallel ped & cycle crossings

NEW YORK
• Current cycle mode share = 1%, but higher in
Manhattan/Brooklyn, strong growth in recent years
• Rapid growth in cycle network reflecting political commitments,
mostly achieved using low cost semi-segregation and painted
lanes.
• Two-way greenways, particularly along waterfronts, are highly
important routes.
• Solutions at traffic signals include bicycle-only signals, ‘mixing
zone’ shared lanes, ASLs and two stage turn boxes.

MINNEAPOLIS
• Current cycle mode share = 5% (work journeys, Minneapolis
City)
• On-highway provision less well developed than New York,
mainly painted lanes, but some semi-segregation and split level
tracks are planned.
• High quality Greenways are key to the city’s cycle strategy, many
following old rail corridors, plus major bridges.
• Also ‘bike boulevards’ along quiet routes in the city grid.

BRIGHTON
• Able to take a 15mile tour almost entirely on traffic-free tracks –
possibly the best UK example of such infrastructure (though some
in need of upgrading)
• Political leadership is critical: party in power to 2011 wanted to rip
out existing tracks; current administration has since built both Old
Shoreham Road and Lewes Road tracks
• Good example of CPH-style ‘hybrid’ track on OSR; and advance
cycle green lights
• Lewes Road has well-specified ‘floating’ bus-stops and generous
cycle-lane-within-bus-lane layout

DUBLIN
• Current cycle mode share = 6% (work journeys, Dublin City)
• Strong technical leadership – in both network planning and in
establishment of guidance/standards
• Proposed technical solutions largely based on Dutch/Danish
practice
• Relatively little high quality infrastructure on the ground at
present, but have already used low level signals, early start at
ASLs, flashing amber left turns, continental roundabout with
Dutch-style cycle tracks, high quality greenways.

NANTES
• Current cycle mode share = 5%, up from 2% in 2008
• Recent strong commitment to increasing cycling and reducing
motor traffic, through access restrictions and space
redistribution in city centre. Integration of cycling and public
transport is seen as vital.
• Major two-way routes - north-south (central track) and east-west
along river, plus painted/buffered tracks elsewhere.
Exemption for cycles at signals turning right (X roads) and going
ahead (T junctions).
• Many roundabouts – better provision needed.

SEVILLE
• From 14km of bike tracks to extensive 120km network covering
most main roads in 4 years (average of 500m/week)
• Very high consistency of layout: 2.5m bi-directional track on one
side of the street; extensive use of ‘light segregation’ (e.g.
‘Lacasitas’) – focus on getting a lot of track built quickly & cheaply
• Directness often sacrificed for continuity
• No dedicated provision for cycling in largely cobbled historic
central area, where many streets very narrow and one-way
• Successful central street shared by pedestrians, bikes and trams –
bike track notionally marked

STOCKHOLM
• City centre built up, generally heavily trafficked and some hostile
roads; little evidence of attempts to manage traffic to improve
traffic conditions (felt more like London than other JD cities)
• Extensive network of tracks/lanes, but little consistency of layout –
partially the consequence of fractured governance/no strategic
authority; general air of opportunistic/context-influenced design.
• Notable that single traffic lanes on several bridges (typically 1/4
original lanes) had been converted to bi-directional bike tracks

MUNICH
• Like Berlin, moving from tracks where there are often conflicts
with pedestrians (‘Rambo cyclists’) to well-specified on-carriageway
lanes (again considered to be safer)
• Also like Berlin, preferring to deal with ‘right hook’ problem by
encouraging vehicles to weave across prior to the junction
• Major programme of introducing quiet, low-speed Fahrradstraßen;
also cycle contra-flow
• Huge investment in promoting a city Bicycle Culture, with a wide
range of mass-participation events
• “Bike theft’s not a problem here; but in Berlin, yes”

BERLIN
• Despite many km of existing off-carriageway cycle paths (in former
West Berlin), policy now is for on-carriageway lanes. Reasons
include cost and safety (it’s considered better for drivers to see
cyclists all the time, not just at junctions); and also the relatively
low spec of paths and associated pedestrian conflicts.
• Typical bike lane spec is 1.5m unidirectional, often with additional
0.5m for gutter/dooring zone.
• All signalised junctions have a full set of low-level cycle signals;
commonly two sets to control movements in different directions.
• Two-stage right turn the norm at signals; extensively marked.
• Rolling out low-speed Fahrradtsraßen (sometimes 10kph limit!)

CAMBRIDGE
• Current cycle mode share = 32% travel to work (2011)
• Extensive well-signed network of routes along quiet streets and
across green spaces, achieved through filtered permeability.
Many off-highway routes quite narrow though.
• Provision along major highways is less good, but this is now the
focus for the future including semi-segregation, together with
extension of existing greenways along guided bus corridor to
create major segregated route across the city.
• Willingness to innovate, eg recent early start cycle signals at ASL
on key Hills Road route.

MALMO/LUND
• Current cycle mode share = 25% Malmo, 43% Lund
• Mature and extensive cycle networks, very similar to Dutch
model – high degree of separation from motor traffic.
• Few cycle lanes, most provision is tracks alongside but separate
from footways. Malmo has two-way tracks (but is changing to
one-way), Lund has one-way tracks. Also many wholly-separated
cycle routes, both urban and rural.
• Dutch-style separated provision at traffic signals, priority over
entries/exits at major roundabouts.

UTRECHT
• Shows what can be achieved, over time, when cycling is
considered – by politicians and practitioners – an entirely
legitimate (and desirable) mode of transport (“We simply wouldn’t
be able to get away with that”)
• When the going gets tough you do something about it! (Even so…)
• Not utopia: but what the UK would consider ped/cyc ‘conflicts’ are
everyday ‘interactions’; since so many cycle, ‘peds’ v ‘cycs’ issues
are diminished; even very short trips made by bike, not on foot
• Small, simple range of track/lane options (incl. interesting layout
for relatively quiet, well-parked streets)
• What’s next? Increasing trip distances using bikes by better
integration with public transport and ‘Pedelec’; more bike parking!

Minimum cycle lane width standards (e.g. Berlin: 1.5m +0.5m)

‘Light segregation’, including ‘wands’ and wide painted buffers

‘Heavier’ low-cost segregation to increase protection

Stepped (‘hybrid’) segregation

Cycle tracks keep going over bridges

Cyclists + pedestrians have priority at unsignalised side streets

Pedestrian and cycle crossings run parallel (use of ‘Elephants’ Feet‘)

External cycle tracks with priority at roundabouts

‘Continental-style’ (single lane, tight-geometry) roundabouts

Pedestrian-cyclist interaction

Clear separation of off-carriageway cycle paths from footways

Low level, well integrated traffic signals for cycles

Simple ‘early start’ green for cyclists in ASLs

Dealing with ‘left/right-hooks’

Simple two-stage opposed turns for cycles at signals

General traffic gets green at same time as ‘parallel’ cyclist + pedestrians

Cyclists allowed to make nearside turn on red (see sign)

• Amsterdam
• Utrecht
• Berlin
• Munich
• Stockholm
• Malmo
• Copenhagen
• Dublin
• Nantes
• Seville
• Cambridge
• Brighton-Hove
• New York
• Minneapolis
• Washington DC
CARDIFF
sq km
219
99
894
312
382
159
616
114
528
140
117
88
788
151
177
140
Pop 000s
810
324
3,450
1,400
1,370
307
1,231
525
590
703
124
273
8,300
393
647
346
Density
3,700
3,300
3,900
4,500
3,600
1,900
2,000
4,600
1,100
5,000
1,100
3,100
10,500
2,600
3,600
6,385
Cycle m/s
~40%
~33%
~15%
~18%
~10%
~25%
~26%
~6%
~5%
~6%
32% jtw
5.4% jtw
~1.5%
~5%
~3% jtw
3.6% to 10%
(2011)

International Cycling Infrastructure, Best Practice Study, Phil Jones

International Cycling Infrastructure, Best Practice Study, Phil Jones

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to International Cycling Infrastructure, Best Practice Study, Phil Jones

Similar to International Cycling Infrastructure, Best Practice Study, Phil Jones (20)

More from Design South East

More from Design South East (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

International Cycling Infrastructure, Best Practice Study, Phil Jones