Lessons from: International Cycling Infrastructure –

Best Practice Study

STUDY PURPOSE

• 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 DCLONDON

sq km2199989431238215961611452814011788788 1511771,580

Pop 000s8103243,4501,4001,370307 1,2315255907031242738,3003936478,308

Density3,7003,3003,9004,5003,6001,900 2,0004,6001,1005,0001,1003,10010,5002,6003,6005,300

Cycle m/s~40%~33%~15%~18%~10%~25% ~26%~6%~5%~6%32% jtw5.4% jtw~1.5%~5%~3% jtw~2%

CITY REPORTS

Allen & Pike StreetsSet the Footprint, Then Set the

Curbs

MINNEAPOLIS

BRIGHTON

DUBLIN

NANTES

SEVILLE

STOCKHOLM

MUNICH

BERLIN

CAMBRIDGE

MALMO/LUND

UTRECHT

COMMON CONDITIONS

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

1

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

2

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.

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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

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

8

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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

COMMON TECHNIQUES

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

UNCOMMON TECHNIQUES

Thanks

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.

NEW YORK

NEW YORK

NEW YORK

NEW YORK

NEW YORK

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.

MINNEAPOLIS

MINNEAPOLIS

MINNEAPOLIS

MINNEAPOLIS

MINNEAPOLIS

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

BRIGHTON

BRIGHTON

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.

DUBLIN

DUBLIN

DUBLIN

DUBLIN

DUBLIN

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.

NANTES

NANTES

NANTES

NANTES

NANTES

NANTES

NANTES

NANTES

NANTES

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

SEVILLE

SEVILLE

SEVILLE

SEVILLE

SEVILLE

SEVILLE

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

STOCKHOLM

STOCKHOLM

STOCKHOLM

STOCKHOLM

STOCKHOLM

STOCKHOLM

STOCKHOLM

STOCKHOLM

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”

MUNICH

MUNICH

MUNICH

MUNICH

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!)

BERLIN

BERLIN

BERLIN

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.

CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE

CAMBRIDGE

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.

MALMO/LUND

MALMO/LUND

MALMO/LUND

MALMO/LUND

MALMO/LUND

MALMO/LUND

MALMO/LUND

MALMO/LUND

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!

UTRECHT

UTRECHT

UTRECHT

UTRECHT

UTRECHT

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

Bus stop bypasses

Clear separation of off-carriageway cycle paths from footways

Bicycles in bus lanes

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)

‘Bicycle Streets’

CARDIFF

CARDIFF

CARDIFF

• Amsterdam• Utrecht• Berlin• Munich• Stockholm• Malmo• Copenhagen• Dublin• Nantes• Seville• Cambridge• Brighton-Hove• New York • Minneapolis• Washington DCCARDIFF

sq km2199989431238215961611452814011788788 151177140

Pop 000s8103243,4501,4001,370307 1,2315255907031242738,300393647346

Density3,7003,3003,9004,5003,6001,900 2,0004,6001,1005,0001,1003,10010,5002,6003,6006,385

Cycle m/s~40%~33%~15%~18%~10%~25% ~26%~6%~5%~6%32% jtw5.4% jtw~1.5%~5%~3% jtw3.6% to 10% (2011)