Guest presentation by Dr Rachel Aldred, Department of Planning and Transport, University of Westminster. Delivered as part of a seminar on 09/12/2015: ‘Just Cycling: the Propensity to Cycle Tool and the Search for a Socially and Environmentally Equitable Transport System’. http://geo8.webarch.net/leeds [Presentation copyright: R Aldred/University of Westminster]

1. Making Cycling Equal: a new
approach to planning
Rachel Aldred
rachelaldred.org
@RachelAldred

2. National Propensity to Cycle Tool
Project
Academic Research Team
Department for Transport

3. This is not inevitable: policy has made it so

4. Why It Matters: stories from older cyclists
(Hull & Cambridge)
‘When I first had [my
tricycle], of course, I
could walk. So, it was
just a useful way of
getting my shopping
which was stable […]
but I would say now,
liberating is the right
word, yes, because
without it I don’t see how
I would do my shopping.’
‘But the bike is not
only fitness but it's
good for your mind
because we lost a
daughter so to bike is
really good for your
mind as well […] For
stress. So the bike to
me and me husband
is everything.’
‘And what a blessing it is
to have a cycle. Coz you
know for me to walk just
to the end of Pickering
Road along here to
catch a bus, it is
absolutely a struggle
with a stick. It really is
difficult.’

5. Cycling and Transport Inequality
– Rich literature on conceptualisations of transport
inequality, e.g.
– Social inclusion and transport
– Transport and access to services
– Rights to mobility
– Environmental justice
– However, cycling marginal within most
– little interest in cycling as addressing mobility,
access or other inequalities

6. Why is Cycling Marginal?
– Cycling access seen generally as only access to a
cycle and/or ability to ride
– A little work on distance-based exclusion
– Hence little mention in much recent work
• E.g. PTEG report on transport and social
inclusion, Rowntree on transport poverty
– Lack of service-based approach to cycling; highly
individualised (see Aldred 2012)
– C.f. work on inequalities in access to bus
services, or exclusionary walking environments

7. Towards a Service-based Approach
– Not the only relevant approach, but useful
– Looks at relationships between social and spatial
inequality in provision and use
– Draws on Church et al 2000 typology of
exclusions: mainly developed with motorised
modes in mind
– Physical exclusion / Geographical exclusion / Exclusion
from facilities / Economic exclusion / Time-based
exclusion / Fear-based exclusion/ Space exclusion

8. What would a service-based approach mean?
– Thinking about cycling as a system and a service
– Ties in nicely to re-thinking cycling as not being primarily
about individual choice
– Links to policy focus on ‘access’
– Also to development of new indices for cycling LOS in
London, Wales, Dublin etc.
Requires: ‘a shift in the discourse from cycling as a
niche activity, for a small and relatively privileged
group, to its positive framing as an inclusive mode
[…] away from cycling as low-cost personal choice
and towards cycling as a mode that, in common with
driving, walking and public transport, requires the
provision of a suitable transport service.’

9. Dimensions of cycling inequality
1. Areas (“geographical exclusion”)
2. Destinations (“exclusion from facilities”)
3. Capability / Distance (“exclusion from facilities”; “time-
based exclusion”)
4. Risk (largely, but not limited to “fear-based exclusion”)
5. Obstacles (“physical exclusion”, also potentially
“space exclusion”)
6. Cost (“economic exclusion”)
– In brackets – how these correspond to Church
et al (2000) factors
• Focus on routes & links between factors

10. Dimension 1-2: area-based inequalities
Dimension Explanation Impacts (existing) Suggested response
Areas An area lacks
infrastructure
to support
local cycle
trips
People in an area are
excluded from cycling
for everyday trips;
particularly problematic
in areas with low car
ownership / lack of
public transport.
Provision of high quality cycle
infrastructure in that area
(potentially also e.g. cycle hire).

11. Dimension 2: destination-based inequalities
Dimension Explanation Impacts (existing) Suggested response
Destinations The cycle
network fails to
connect key
destinations,
by contrast
with primary
motoring
routes.
Some groups’
destinations may be
served but not others
(e.g. routes connect to
some employment
centres but not others).
Cycle route planning needs to focus
(in an inclusive way) on key origins
and destinations, ensuring these
are connected.

12. Dimension 3: distance/capability
Dimension Explanation Impacts (existing) Suggested response
Distance/
Capability
As distance
increases,
propensity to
cycle falls.
However, this is
more acute for
some groups e.g.
women, children
and older people,
partly due to
physical
capability.
Where cycle network
routes are longer than
equivalent routes by
other modes, this
disproportionately
discourages women,
children and older
people from making a
given length of trip by
cycle.
Dual network planning
can exacerbate this.
Utility cycle routes must prioritise
directness to maximise take-up and
accessibility, particularly where
targeted journeys are made by
women, older people, etc.
Other measures to make routes
faster include junction priority,
improved surfaces, electric assist
cycles.
In the longer term, land-use
planning can help create cycleable
distances to facilities for all.

13. Dimension 4: risk
Dimension Explanation Impacts (existing) Suggested response
Risk (i) While people generally
prefer greater separation
from motor traffic, groups
have different levels of
tolerance to motor traffic
risk.
(ii) The transport literature
indicates some groups
(e.g. women, older people)
have greater concerns for
social safety while
travelling.
(iii) If cycling (as in UK) is
still a stigmatised activity,
and cycling stigma
differentially affects
different social groups.
(i)Lower-quality
infrastructure (e.g. painted
lanes on busy roads)
disproportionately
excludes groups with
lower levels of risk
tolerance.
(ii) Routes where social
safety is a problem at
times disproportionately
exclude people from
under-represented groups
(iii) Many people in under-
represented groups are
especially vulnerable to
stigma of poverty,
sportiness, etc.
(i)Planners need to be mindful of
the fact that lower infrastructural
standards will disproportionately
exclude these groups.
(ii)Routes need to be perceived
as also being safe from crime at
night and when there are fewer
cyclists on the roads.
(iii) Cycling needs to be
mainstreamed and seen as
socially valuable, to counter
stigma; planning and promotion of
new infrastructure can also be
targeted at specific groups.

14. Dimension 5: obstacles
Dimension Explanation Impacts (existing) Suggested response
Obstacles Physical barriers on cycle
routes disproportionately
exclude some groups;
banning cycling in e.g.
pedestrianised town
centres excludes those
unable to dismount.
Many barriers (e.g. steps,
gates, bollards)
disproportionately
exclude people using
non-standard cycles
(disabled people, those
carrying children or
cargo) and those less fit
or able.
Infrastructure standards need to
take account of a range of
different cycle types and cyclist
ability.
Existing and planned cycle
routes should be audited in
relation to these barriers being
mindful of equalities legislation
(in UK, the Equality Act 2010).

15. Dimension 6: cost
Dimension Explanation Impacts (existing) Suggested response
Cost People are financially
excluded by personal
transport costs such as
purchasing a bicycle or
cycle hire membership.
While not the major
factor in access to
cycling, this may make
people in lower income
groups less likely to
cycle, particularly where
they need electric,
adapted, or cargo cycles.
Potential to use targeted
schemes (e.g. cycle loan
programmes, subsidising cargo
cycle access) and/or broaden
existing subsidy schemes.
Consider equity issues in
charging for cycle hire, and in
the provision of schemes that
only target securely employed
workers.

16. What does this imply for planning?
– Understanding, mapping & studying the different
dimensions & their connections
– Planning route infrastructure and policy more
broadly to address inequalities
• ‘Cultural’ problems may have infrastructural
solutions at least in part
– Range of new tools, methods, data collection
– More fundamentally, new ways of understanding
cycling, mainstreaming and integrating it
– Starting to happen

17. And more broadly…
‘a shift in the discourse from cycling as a niche
activity, for a small and relatively privileged
group, to its positive framing as an inclusive
mode […] away from cycling as low-cost
personal choice and towards cycling as a mode
that, in common with driving, walking and public
transport, requires the provision of a suitable
transport service.’
– Making cycling equal should be a public policy
goal necessitating systemic change

18. Making Cycling Equal: a new
approach to planning
Rachel Aldred
rachelaldred.org
@RachelAldred