Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Cycling infrastructure
View on Wikipedia



Cycling infrastructure is all infrastructure cyclists are allowed to use. Bikeways include bike paths, bike lanes, cycle tracks, rail trails and, where permitted, sidewalks. Roads used by motorists are also cycling infrastructure, except where cyclists are barred such as many freeways/motorways. It includes amenities such as bike racks for parking, shelters, service centers and specialized traffic signs and signals. The more cycling infrastructure, the more people get about by bicycle.[1]

Good road design, road maintenance and traffic management can make cycling safer and more useful. Settlements with a dense network of interconnected streets tend to be places for getting around by bike. Their cycling networks can give people direct, fast, easy and convenient routes.
History
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (June 2024) |
The history of cycling infrastructure starts from shortly after the bike boom of the 1880s when the first short stretches of dedicated bicycle infrastructure were built, through to the rise of the automobile from the mid-20th century onwards and the concomitant decline of cycling as a means of transport, to cycling's comeback from the 1970s onwards.
Bikeways
[edit]A bikeway (US) or cycleway (UK) is a lane, route, way or path which in some manner is specifically designed and /or designated for bicycle travel.[2] Bike lanes demarcated by a painted marking are quite common in many cities. Cycle tracks demarcated by barriers, bollards or boulevards are quite common in some European countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. They are also increasingly common in major cities elsewhere, such as New York, Melbourne, Ottawa, Vancouver and San Francisco. Montreal and Davis, California, which have had segregated cycling facilities with barriers for several decades, are among the earliest examples in North America.
Various guides exist to define the different types of bikeway infrastructure, including UK Department for Transport manual The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes,[3] Sustrans Design Manual,[4] UK Department of Transport Local Transport Note 2/08: Cycle Infrastructure Design,[5] the Danish Road Authority guide Registration and classification of paths,[6] the Dutch CROW,[7] the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide to Bikeway Facilities, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),[8][9] and the US National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide.[10]
In the Netherlands, the Tekenen voor de fiets design manual recommends a width of at least 2 meters, or 2.5 metres if used by more than 150 bicycles per hour. A minimum width of 2 meters is specified by the cities of Utrecht and 's-Hertogenbosch for new cycle lanes.[11] The Netherlands also has protected intersections to cyclists crossing roads.
Terms
[edit]
Some bikeways are separated from motor traffic by physical constraints (e.g. barriers, parking or bollards)—bicycle trail, cycle track—but others are partially separated only by painted markings—bike lane, buffered bike lane, and contraflow bike lane. Some share the roadway with motor vehicles—bicycle boulevard, sharrow, advisory bike lane—or shared with pedestrians—shared use paths and greenways.
Segregation
[edit]The term bikeway is largely used in North America to describe all routes that have been designed or updated to encourage more cycling or make cycling safer. In some jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, segregated cycling facility is sometimes preferred to describe cycling infrastructure which has varying degrees of separation from motorized traffic, or which has excluded pedestrian traffic in the case of exclusive bike paths.[12]
There is no single usage of segregation; in some cases it can mean the exclusion of motor vehicles and in other cases the exclusion of pedestrians as well. Thus, it includes bike lanes with solid painted lines but not lanes with dotted lines and advisory bike lanes where motor vehicles are allowed to encroach on the lane.[13] It includes cycle tracks as physically distinct from the roadway and sidewalk (e.g. barriers, parking or bollards).[14] And it includes bike paths in their own right of way exclusive to cycling. Paths which are shared with pedestrians and other non-motorized traffic are not considered segregated and are typically called shared use path, multi-use path in North America and shared-use footway in the UK.
Safety
[edit]On major roads, segregated cycle tracks lead to safety improvements compared with cycling in traffic.[15][16][17][18][19] There are concerns over the safety of cycle tracks and lanes at junctions due to collisions between turning motorists and cyclists, particularly where cycle tracks are two-way.[20][21] The safety of cycle tracks at junctions can be improved with designs such as cycle path deflection (between 2 m and 5 m) and protected intersections.[22] At multi-lane roundabouts, safety for cyclists is compromised. The installation of separated cycle tracks has been shown to improve safety at roundabouts.[16] A Cochrane review of published evidence found that there was limited evidence to conclude whether cycling infrastructure improves cyclist safety.[23]
Legislation
[edit]Different countries have different ways to legally define and enforce bikeways.
Bikeway controversies
[edit]Some detractors argue that one must be careful in interpreting the operation of dedicated or segregated bikeways/cycle facilities across different designs and contexts; what works for the Netherlands will not necessarily work elsewhere, or claiming that bikeways increase urban air pollution.[24]
Other transportation planners consider an incremental, piecemeal approach to bike infrastructure buildout ineffective and advocate for complete networks to be built in a single phase.[25]
Proponents point out that cycling infrastructure including dedicated bike lanes has been implemented in many cities; when well-designed and well-implemented they are popular and safe, and they are effective at relieving both congestion and air pollution.[26]
Bikeway selection
[edit]Jurisdictions have guidelines around the selection of the right bikeway treatments in order make routes more comfortable and safer for cycling.
A study reviewing the safety of "road diets" (motor traffic lane restrictions) for bike lanes found in summary that crash frequencies at road diets in the period after installation were 6% lower, road diets do not affect crash severity, or result in a significant change in crash types. This research was conducted by looking at areas scheduled for conversion before and after the road diet was performed. While also comparing similar areas that had not received any changes. It is noted that further research is recommended to confirm findings.[27]
Bikeway types
[edit]You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (June 2018) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in French. (June 2018) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Bikeways can fall into these main categories: separated in-roadway bikeways such as bike lanes and buffered bike lanes; physically separated in-roadway bikeways such as cycle tracks; right-of-way paths such as bike paths and shared use paths; and shared in-roadway bikeways such as bike boulevards, shared lane markings, and advisory bike lanes. The exact categorization changes depending on the jurisdiction and organization, while many just list the types by their commonly used names[28][29][30]
Dedicated bikeways
[edit]| Type | Variant | Description | Image |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle lane (aka bike lane) | Advisory | A bike lane which other users are permitted to use, for example to park or pass other vehicles. | |
| Mandatory | A bike lane for the exclusive use of cyclists, marked by a solid line in most places. | ||
| Buffered | A bike lane with some form of buffer between motor traffic and the cycle lane. | ||
| Lightly segregated | A bike lane with separating features such as wands or orcas. | ||
| Contraflow | A bike lane which allows cyclists to go against the flow of a one-way street. | ||
| Cycle track (aka bike track) | A physically separated part of the highway dedicated for cycling which typically excludes all motorized traffic with some sort of vertical barrier | ||
| Cycle path (aka bike path or bike trail) | A path dedicated for cycling which is remote from a public highway. | ||
| Shared use path (aka multi-use path) | Shared | A path dedicated for both pedestrians and cycling with the whole path shared. This includes greenways, which are trails along a strip of undeveloped land, in an urban area, set aside for recreational use or environmental protection.[31][32] Greenways are frequently created out of disused railways, canal towpaths, utility or similar rights of way, or derelict industrial land. Greenways can also be linear parks, and can serve as wildlife corridors. | |
| Segregated | A path dedicated for both pedestrians and cycling, split into a walking and cycling section, typically by a painted line (or other feature). | ||
| Road shoulder | A reserved lane on the verge of a roadway that is often used by bicyclists and also serves as an emergency stopping lane for motor vehicles. |
Sharing with motor traffic
[edit]Cyclists are legally allowed to travel on many roadways in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.



A bicycle boulevard or cycle street is a low speed street which has been optimized for bicycle traffic. Bicycle boulevards discourage cut-through motor vehicle traffic but allow local motor vehicle traffic. They are designed to give priority to cyclists as through-going traffic.
A shared lane marking, also known as a sharrow is a street marking that indicates the preferred lateral position for cyclists (to avoid the door zone and other obstacles) where dedicated bike lanes are not available.
A 2-1 road is a roadway striping configuration which provides for two-way motor vehicle and bicycle traffic using a central vehicular travel lane and "advisory" bike lanes on either side. The center lane is dedicated to, and shared by, motorists traveling in both directions. The center lane is narrower than two vehicular travel lanes and has no centerline; some are narrower than the width of a car. Cyclists are given preference in the bike lanes but motorists can encroach into the bike lanes to pass other motor vehicles after yielding to cyclists. Advisory bike lanes are normally installed on low volume streets.[13] Advisory bike lanes have a number of names. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration calls them "Advisory Shoulders".[34] In New Zealand, they are called 2-minus-1 roads. They are called Schutzstreifen (Germany), Suggestiestrook (Netherlands), and Suggestion Lanes (a literal English translation of Suggestiestrook).[35]
Bicycle highways
[edit]Denmark and the Netherlands have pioneered the concept of "bicycle superhighways". The first Dutch route opened in 2004 between Breda and Etten-Leur; many others have been added since then.[36] In 2017 several bicycle superhighways were opened in the Arnhem-Nijmegen region, with the RijnWaalpad as the best example of this new type of cycling infrastructure.
The first Danish route, C99, opened in 2012 between the Vesterbro rail station in Copenhagen and Albertslund, a western suburb. The route cost 13.4 million Danish kroner and is 17.5 km long, built with few stops and new paths away from traffic. "Service stations" with air pumps are located at regular intervals, and where the route must cross streets, handholds and running boards are provided so cyclists can wait without having to put their feet on the ground.[37] Similar projects have since been built in Germany among other countries.
The cost of building a bicycle super highway depends on many things, but is usually between €300,000/km (for a wide dedicated cycle track) and €800,000/km (when complex civil engineering structures are needed).[38]
Cycling-friendly streetscape modifications
[edit]There are various measures cities and regions often take on the roadway to make it more cycling friendly and safer. Aspects of infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist-hostile or as cyclist-friendly. However, scientific research indicates that different groups of cyclists show varying preferences of which aspects of cycling infrastructure are most relevant when choosing a specific cycling route over another.[39] Measures to encourage cycling include traffic calming; traffic reduction; junction treatment; traffic control systems to recognize cyclists and give them priority; exempt cyclists from banned turns and access restrictions; implement contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets; implement on-street parking restrictions; provide advanced stop lines/bypasses for cyclists at traffic signals; marking wide curb/kerb lanes; and marking shared bus/cycle lanes.[40]
Colombian city, Bogota converted some car lanes into bidirectional bike lanes during coronavirus pandemic, adding 84 km of new bike lanes; the government is intending to make these new bike lanes permanent. In the US, slow-street movements have been introduced by erecting makeshift barriers to slow traffic and allow bikers and walkers to safely share the road with motorists.[41]
Traffic reduction
[edit]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 centers.
Indirect methods involve reducing the infrastructural capacity dedicated to moving motorized vehicles. 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 center.[42] Similarly, Groningen is divided into four zones that cannot be crossed by private motor-traffic, (private cars must use the ring road instead).[43] 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.[44]
Another approach is to reduce the capacity to park cars. Starting in the 1970s, the city of Copenhagen, where now 36% of the trips are done by bicycle,[45] adopted a policy of reducing available car parking capacity by several per cents per year. The city of Amsterdam, where around 40% of all trips are by bicycle,[46] 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.[47]
Traffic calming
[edit]Speed reduction has traditionally been attempted by statutory speed limits and enforcing the assured clear distance ahead rule.
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, Sweden, mean traffic speeds in 2006 dropped from 21 to 16 km/h (13 to 10 mph) since the implementation of such a scheme.[48]
Even without shared street implementation, creating 30 km/h zones (or 20 mph zone) has been shown to reduce crash rates and increase numbers of cyclists and pedestrians.[49] Other studies have revealed that lower speeds reduce community severance caused by high speed roads. Research has shown that there is more neighborhood interaction and community cohesion when speeds are reduced to 20 mph.[50]
One-way streets
[edit]German research indicates that making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a reduction in the total number of collisions.[51] In Belgium, all one-way streets in 50 km/h zones are by default two-way for cyclists.[52] A Danish road directorate states that in town centers 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.[53]
Two-way cycling on one-way streets
[edit]
One-way street systems can be viewed as either a product of traffic management that focuses on trying to keep motorized vehicles moving regardless of the social and other impacts, such as by some cycling campaigners,[54] or seen as a useful tool for traffic calming, and for eliminating rat runs, in the view of UK traffic planners.[55]
One-way streets can disadvantage cyclists by increasing trip-length, delays and hazards associated with weaving maneuvers at junctions.[40] In northern European countries such as the Netherlands, however, cyclists are frequently granted exemptions from one-way street restrictions, which improves cycling traffic flow while restricting motorized vehicles.[56]
German research indicates that making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a reduction in the total number of collisions.[57]
There are often restrictions to what one-way streets are good candidates for allowing two-way cycling traffic. In Belgium road authorities in principle allow any one-way street in 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph) zones to be two-way for cyclists if the available lane is at least 3 metres (9.8 ft) wide (area free from parking) and no specific local circumstances prevent it.[58] Denmark, a country with high cycling levels, does not use one-way systems to improve traffic flow.[59] Some commentators argue that the initial goal should be to dismantle large one-way street systems as a traffic calming/traffic reduction measure, followed by the provision of two-way cyclist access on any one-way streets that remain.[60]
Intersection and junction design
[edit]In general, junction designs that favor higher-speed turning, weaving and merging movements by motorists tend to be hostile for cyclists. Free-flowing arrangements can be hazardous for cyclists and should be avoided.[40] Features such as large entry curvature, slip-roads and high flow roundabouts are associated with increased risk of car–cyclist collisions.[61][62] Cycling advocates argue for modifications and alternative junction types that resolve these issues such as reducing kerb radii on street corners, eliminating slip roads and replacing large roundabouts with signalized intersections.[60][63]
Protected intersection
[edit]Another approach which the Netherlands innovated is called in North America a protected intersection that reconfigures intersections to reduce risk to cyclists as they cross or turn. Some American cities are starting to pilot protected intersections.
Bike box
[edit]A bike box or an advanced stop line is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safer and more visible way to get ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.[64]
Roundabouts
[edit]
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.[62] Research indicates that excessive sightlines at uncontrolled intersections compound these effects.[61][65] 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.[66] The Dutch CROW guidelines recommend roundabouts only for intersections with motorized traffic up to 1500 per hour. To accommodate greater volumes of traffic, they recommend traffic light intersections or grade separation for cyclists.[67] Examples of grade separation for cyclists include tunnels, or more spectacularly, raised "floating" roundabouts for cyclists.[68]
Traffic signals/Traffic control systems
[edit]How traffic signals are designed and implemented directly impacts cyclists.[69] For instance, poorly adjusted vehicle detector systems, used to trigger signal changes, may not correctly detect cyclists. This can leave cyclists in the position of having to "run" red lights if no motorized vehicle arrives to trigger a signal change.[70] Some cities use urban adaptive traffic control systems (UTCs), which use linked traffic signals to manage traffic in response to changes in demand.[69] There is an argument that using a UTC system merely to provide for increased capacity for motor traffic will simply drive growth in such traffic.[71] However, there are more direct negative impacts. For instance, where signals are arranged to provide motor traffic with so-called green waves, this can create "red waves" for other road users such as cyclists and public transport services.[69] Traffic managers in Copenhagen have now turned this approach on its head and are linking cyclist-specific traffic signals on a major arterial bike lane to provide green waves for rush hour cycle-traffic.[72] However, this would still not resolve the problem of red-waves for slow (old and young) and fast (above average fitness) cyclists. Cycling-specific measures that can be applied at traffic signals include the use of advanced stop lines and/or bypasses. In some cases cyclists might be given a free-turn or a signal bypass if turning into a road on the nearside.[40]

Signposting
[edit]In many places worldwide special signposts for bicycles are used to indicate directions and distances to destinations for cyclists. Apart from signposting in and between urban areas,[73] mountain pass cycling milestones have become an important service for bicycle tourists. They provide cyclists with information about their current position with regard to the summit of the mountain pass.[74]
Numbered-node cycle networks are increasingly used in Europe to give flexible, low-cost signage.
Widening outside lanes
[edit]One method for reducing potential friction between cyclists and motorized vehicles is to provide "wide kerb", or "nearside", lanes (UK terminology) or "wide outside through lane" (U.S. terminology). These extra-wide lanes increase the probability that motorists pass cyclists at a safe distance without having to change lanes.[75][76] This is held to be particularly important on routes with a high proportion of wide vehicles such as buses or heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). They also provide more room for cyclists to filter past queues of cars in congested conditions and to safely overtake each other. Due to the tendency of all vehicle users to stay in the center of their lane, it would be necessary to sub-divide the cycle lane with a broken white line to facilitate safe overtaking. Overtaking is indispensable for cyclists, as speeds are not dependent on the legal speed limit, but on the rider's capability.

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.[77]
Shared space
[edit]
Shared space schemes extend this principle further by removing the reliance on lane markings altogether, and also removing road signs and signals, allowing all road users to use any part of the road, and giving all road users equal priority and equal responsibility for each other's 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.[78] After the partial conversion of London's Kensington High Street to shared space, accidents decreased by 44% (the London average was 17%).[78] However, in July 2018, the UK 'paused' all further shared space schemes over fears that a scheme dependent on eye-contact between drivers and pedestrians was unavoidably dangerous to pedestrians with visual impairments.[79]

CFI argues for a marked lane width of 4.25 metres (13.9 ft).[40] On undivided roads, width provides cyclists with adequate clearance from passing HGVs while being narrow enough to deter drivers from "doubling up" to 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. The European Commission specifically endorses wide lanes in its policy document on cycling promotion, Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities.[77]
Shared bus and cycle lanes
[edit]Shared bus and cycle lanes are also a method for providing a more comfortable and safer space for cyclists. Depending on the width of the lane, the speeds and number of buses, and other local factors, the safety and popularity of this arrangement vary.
In the Netherlands mixed bus/cycle lanes are uncommon. According to the Sustainable Safety guidelines they would violate the principle of homogeneity and put road users of very different masses and speed behavior into the same lane, which is generally discouraged.[80]
Road surface
[edit]Bicycle tires being narrow, road surface is more important than for other transport, for both comfort and safety. The type and placement of storm drains, manholes, surface markings, and the general road surface quality should all be taken into account by a bicycle transportation engineer. Drain grates, for example, must not catch wheels.
Trip-end facilities
[edit]Bicycle parking/storage arrangements
[edit]

As secure and convenient bicycle parking is a key factor in influencing a person's decision to cycle, decent parking infrastructure must be provided to encourage the uptake of cycling.[81] Decent bicycle parking involves weather-proof infrastructure such as lockers, stands, staffed or unstaffed bicycle parks,[82] as well as bike parking facilities within workplaces to facilitate bicycle commuting. It also will help if certain legal arrangements are put into place to enable legitimate ad hoc parking, for example to allow people to lock their bicycles to railings, signs and other street furniture when individual proper bike stands are unavailable.[83]
Other trip end facilities
[edit]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.[84]
Theft reduction measures
[edit]The theft of bicycles is one of the major problems that slow the development of urban cycling. Bicycle theft discourages regular cyclists from buying new bicycles, as well as putting off people who might want to invest in a bicycle.
Several measures can help reduce bicycle theft:
- Bicycle parking stations - buildings or structures designed for use as bicycle parking facilities, primarily for bicycle security
- Bicycle registration to enable recovery if stolen
- Danish bicycle VIN-system, a law requiring all bicycles in Denmark to have a vehicle identification number (VIN) with the bike's manufacturer code, a serial number, and a construction year code
- Making cyclists aware of antitheft devices and their effective use
- Mounting sting operations to catch thieves
- Secure bicycle parking: offering safe bicycle parking facilities[85] such as guarded bicycle parking (staffed or with camera surveillance) or bicycle lockers
- Promoting devices to enable remote tracking of a bicycle's location
- Targeting cycle thieves
- Using folding bicycles which can be safely stored (for example) in cloakrooms or under desks.
Certain European countries apply such measures with success, such as the Netherlands or certain German cities using registration and recovery. Since mid-2004, France has instituted a system of registration, in some places allowing stolen bicycles to be put on file in partnership with the urban cyclists' associations. This approach has reputedly increased the stolen bicycle recovery rate to more than 40%. By comparison, before the commencement of registration, the recovery rate in France was about 2%.
In some areas of the United Kingdom, bicycles fitted with location tracking devices are left poorly secured in theft hot-spots. When the bike is stolen, the police can locate it and arrest the thieves. This sometimes leads to the dismantling of organized bicycle theft rings, as bike theft generally enjoys a very low priority with the police.
Bicycle lift
[edit]
Bicycle lifts are used to haul bikes up stairs and steep hills. They are used to improve accessibility and encourage casual cycling.
Bike escalators are widely used in East Asia and are used in parts of Europe.
Impact
[edit]According to a 2019 study, protected and separated bike infrastructure is associated with greater safety outcomes for all road users.[86]
A 2021 review of existing research found that closing car lanes and replacing them with bike lanes or pedestrian lanes had positive or non-significant economic effects.[87]
A 2021 case-control study of cities found that redistributing street space for cycling infrastructure—for so-called "pop-up bike lanes" during the COVID-19 pandemic—lead to large additional increases in cycling. These may have substantial environmental and health benefits[88][89] which contemporary decision-makers have pledged to genuinely strive for with set goals such as CO2 emissions reductions of 55% by 2030 by the EU, climate change mitigation responsibilities of the Paris Agreement and EU air quality rules.[90][91]
Integration with public transit
[edit]
Cycling is often integrated with other transport. For example, in the Netherlands and Denmark a large number of train journeys may start by bicycle. In 1991, 44% of Dutch train travelers went to their local station by bicycle and 14% used a bicycle at their destinations.[92] The key ingredients for this are claimed to be:
- an efficient, attractive and affordable train service
- secure bike parking at train stations
- a quick and easy bicycle rental system for commuters, the OV-bicycle scheme,[93] at train stations
- a town planning policy that results in a sufficient proportion of the potential commuter population (e.g. 44%) living/working within a reasonable cycling distance of the train stations.
It has been argued in relation to this aspect of Dutch or Danish policy that ongoing investment in rail services is vital to maintaining their levels of cycle use.
Cycling and public transport are well integrated in Japan.[94] Starting in 1978, Japan expanded bicycle parking supply at railway stations from 598,000 spaces in 1977 to 2,382,000 spaces in 1987. As of 1987, Japanese provisions included 516 multi-story garages for bicycle parking.[95]
In some cities, bicycles may be carried on local trains, trams and buses so that they may be used at either end of the trip. The Rheinbahn transit company in Düsseldorf permits bicycle carriage on all its bus, tram and train services at any time of the day.[96] In Munich bicycles are allowed on the S-Bahn commuter trains outside of rush hours,[97] and folding bikes are allowed on city busses. In Copenhagen, you can take your bicycle with you in the S-tog commuter trains, all times a day with no additional costs.[98] In France, the prestigious TGV high-speed trains are even having some of their first class capacity converted to store bicycles.[99] There have also been schemes, such as in Victoria, British Columbia, Acadia, and Canberra, Australia, to provide bicycle carriage on buses using externally mounted bike carriers.[100][101][102]
In some Canadian cities, including Edmonton, Alberta, and Toronto, Ontario, busses on most city routes have externally mounted carriers for bicycles, and bikes are allowed on the light rail trains at no extra cost outside of rush hour.[103][104] All public transit buses in Chicago and suburbs allow up to two bikes at all times.[105][106][107] The same is true of Grand River Transit buses in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.[108] Trains allow bikes with some restrictions.[106][109] Where such services are not available, some cyclists get around this restriction by removing their pedals and loosening their handlebars as to fit into a box or by using folding bikes that can be brought onto the train or bus like a piece of luggage. The article on buses in Christchurch, New Zealand, lists 27 routes with bike racks.
In the EU regional train services must carry bikes, and from 2025 new and major upgraded trains are generally required to have space for at least 4 non-folding bikes; however international services with countries outside the EU are exempt from these rules.[110] In 2023 Eurostar cycle booking was described as "farcical".[111] Nevertheless EU train operators are sometimes allowed to restrict bikes, for example on old rolling stock or during peak hours.[112]
UK provision for bikes on trains varies considerably,[113] with some train operating companies being criticised, for example for only providing vertical storage, which can be difficult or impossible to use.[114] A UK Department for Transport 2021 white paper said "Bringing a bike on board makes a train journey even more convenient, yet even as cycling has grown in popularity, the railways have reduced space available for bikes on trains. Great British Railways will reverse that, increasing space on existing trains wherever practically possible, including on popular leisure routes."[115] A DoT train specification document issued in 2012 says " Provision must be made for an excess luggage storage area which, as a minimum, is capable of accommodating two bicycles or luggage up to a minimum total volume of 2m3" with a bicycle being defined as a "Full size 'road' bicycle with 25inch frame".[116] As of 2024[update] some UK train companies severely limit bikes, for example GWR does not guarantee storage for bikes which have wheels with a rim diameter more than 50cm,[117] which most bicycles do.[118]
Bikesharing systems
[edit]A bicycle sharing system, public bicycle system, or bike share scheme, is a service in which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis. Bike share schemes allow people to borrow a bike from point "A" and return it at point "B". Many of the bicycle sharing systems are on a subscription basis.
Examples of cycling infrastructure
[edit]-
Cycling in Santos, Brazil
-
Bikeway in Portugal
-
Bikeway in Pocuro, Chile
-
Bikeway in Pesaro, Italy
-
Ciclopaseo, Ciclovía Ejido Park Quito, Ecuador
-
Bikeway in Bogotá, Colombia
-
Trans Canada Trail along Coal Harbour in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia
-
Cycling in Los Angeles, California, Cycleway in 1900
-
Bikeway in Minsk
-
Bikeway in Daejeon, Korea
See also
[edit]- Bicycle bridge
- Bicycle parking station – Building or structure for bicycle parking
- Bicycle stairway
- Cyclability – Degree of the ease of cycling
- History of cycling infrastructure
- Outline of cycling – Overview and topical guide
- Rail trail – Railroad bed converted to a recreational trail
- Road reallocation – Land route
- Removal of curbside parking spaces – Urban area absent of motor vehicles : frees up space for bicycle lanes
- Safety of cycling infrastructure – Overview of bicycle safety concerns
- Shared space – Roads unsegregated by travel mode
- Street reclamation – Changing streets to focus on non-car use
Organizing bodies:
- Adventure Cycling Association – American nonprofit member organization
- National Association of City Transportation Officials – North American association
Muli-modal road safety:
- Assured clear distance ahead – Safe driving distance between cars
References
[edit]- ^ Mueller, N (2018). "Health impact assessment of cycling network expansions in European cities" (PDF). Preventive Medicine. 109: 62–70. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.011. hdl:10230/42143. PMID 29330030. S2CID 3774985.
- ^ "Urban Bikeway Design Guide". National Association of City Transportation Officials. 27 June 2012. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
- ^ "Standards for Highways online resources – Detailed guidance – GOV.UK" (PDF).
- ^ "Sustrans Design Manual" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
- ^ "Cycle Infrastructure Design" (PDF). Department of Transport. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 October 2016. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
- ^ "Stiklassificering" (PDF). vejdirektoratet.dk. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 September 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
- ^ "Home – CROW". crow.nl. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
- ^ "Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Archived from the original on 12 September 2014. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
- ^ "2009 MUTCD with Revisions 1 and 2, May 2012". U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Retrieved 8 July 2015.
- ^ "Urban Bikeway Design Guide". National Association of City Transportation Officials. 27 June 2012. Archived from the original on 28 June 2015. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
- ^ "How wide is a Dutch cycle path?". wordpress.com. 29 June 2011.
- ^ "Sustrans Handbook for Cycle-friendly Design" (PDF). Sustrans. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
- ^ a b "Advisory bike lane". Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
- ^ "Cycle Tracks – National Association of City Transportation Officials". 14 December 2011.
- ^ Lusk, A. C.; Furth, P. G.; Morency, P.; Miranda-Moreno, L. F.; Willett, W. C.; Dennerlein, J. T. (2011). "Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street". Injury Prevention. 17 (2): 131–5. doi:10.1136/ip.2010.028696. PMC 3064866. PMID 21307080.
- ^ a b Reynolds, Conor CO; Harris, M Anne; Teschke, Kay; Cripton, Peter A; Winters, Meghan (21 October 2009). "The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature". Environmental Health. 8 (1): 47. Bibcode:2009EnvHe...8...47R. doi:10.1186/1476-069x-8-47. ISSN 1476-069X. PMC 2776010. PMID 19845962.
- ^ Schepers, P.; Twisk, D.; Fishman, E.; Fyhri, A.; Jensen, A. (1 February 2017). "The Dutch road to a high level of cycling safety". Safety Science. 92: 264–273. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.06.005. hdl:11250/2766251. ISSN 0925-7535. S2CID 110938997.
- ^ Teschke, Kay; Harris, M. Anne; Reynolds, Conor C. O.; Winters, Meghan; Babul, Shelina; Chipman, Mary; Cusimano, Michael D.; Brubacher, Jeff R.; Hunte, Garth; Friedman, Steven M.; Monro, Melody; Shen, Hui; Vernich, Lee; Cripton, Peter A. (2012). "Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study". American Journal of Public Health. 102 (12): 2336–43. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762. PMC 3519333. PMID 23078480.
- "Safety & Route Type: Bicyclists' Injuries & The Cycling Environment". University of British Columbia.
- ^ Ling, Rebecca; Rothman, Linda; Cloutier, Marie-Soleil; Macarthur, Colin; Howard, Andrew (February 2020). "Cyclist-motor vehicle collisions before and after implementation of cycle tracks in Toronto, Canada". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 135 105360. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.105360. ISSN 0001-4575. PMID 31785479. S2CID 208515946.
- ^ Ling, Rebecca; Rothman, Linda; Cloutier, Marie-Soleil; Macarthur, Colin; Howard, Andrew (February 2020). "Cyclist-motor vehicle collisions before and after implementation of cycle tracks in Toronto, Canada". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 135 105360. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.105360. ISSN 0001-4575. PMID 31785479. S2CID 208515946.
- ^ http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/agerholm_et_al._bicycle_paths.pdf[full citation needed]
- ^ Zangenehpour, Sohail; Strauss, Jillian; Miranda-Moreno, Luis F.; Saunier, Nicolas (1 January 2016). "Are signalized intersections with cycle tracks safer? A case–control study based on automated surrogate safety analysis using video data". Accident Analysis & Prevention. 86: 161–172. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.10.025. ISSN 0001-4575. PMID 26562673.
- ^ Mulvaney, Caroline A; Smith, Sherie; Watson, Michael C; Parkin, John; Coupland, Carol; Miller, Philip; Kendrick, Denise; McClintock, Hugh (10 December 2015). Cochrane Injuries Group (ed.). "Cycling infrastructure for reducing cycling injuries in cyclists". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015 (12) CD010415. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010415.pub2. PMC 8629647. PMID 26661390.
- ^ Solomon, Lawrence (1 December 2017). "Ban the Bike". Financial Post.
- ^ Brown, Mark (9 October 2020). "The Benefits of Building Complete Bike Lane Networks In One Fell Swoop". Car Free America. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
- ^ Norman, Will (1 December 2017). "Bike lanes don't clog up our roads, they keep London moving". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
- ^ Herman, F. (30 May 2019). "Evaluation of Lane Reduction "Road Diet" Measures and Their Effects on Crashes and Injuries". FDLP Electronic Collection Archive. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ "Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000" (PDF). California Department of Transportation. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
- ^ "City of Portland Bicycle Master Plan" (PDF). Retrieved 7 July 2015.
- ^ "NYC Street Design Manual" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 December 2019. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
- ^ Oxford Dictionary of English
- ^ Encyclopedia of Environmental Studies by William Ashworth and Charles E. Little. New York: Facts on File, c1991.
- ^ "The world's busiest bike path is in Copenhagen – INDEX: Design to Improve Life®". INDEX: Design to Improve Life®. 30 March 2011. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
- ^ "Small Towns – Publications – Bicycle and Pedestrian Program – Environment – FHWA". Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
- ^ "Advisory bicycle lanes – Home". Advisory Bicycle Lanes.
- ^ "A view from the cycle path: First cycle "superhighway" revisited".
- ^ "The project | Cykelsuperstier". www.cykelsuperstier.dk. Archived from the original on 17 April 2012. Retrieved 15 January 2022.
- ^ Buekers, J; Dons, E; Elen, B; Int Panis, L (2015). "Health impact model for modal shift from car use to cycling or walking in Flanders: application to two bicycle highways". Journal of Transport and Health. 2 (4): 549–562. Bibcode:2015JTHea...2..549B. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2015.08.003.
- ^ Susanne Grüner; Mark Vollrath (27 June 2021). "Reaching Your Destination on Time - Route Choice Decisions of Different Commuter Cyclist Types". Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Vol. 270. pp. 162–169. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80012-3_20. ISBN 978-3-030-80011-6. S2CID 237284652.
- ^ a b c d e Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure: Guidelines for Planning and Design Archived 7 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine, Institution of Highways and Transportation, Cyclists Touring Club, 1996.
- ^ Johanson, Mark (19 November 2020). "How bike-friendly 'slow streets' are changing cities". BBC. Archived from the original on 18 November 2020. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
- ^ Woonerf revisited Archived 9 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine Delft as an example, Steven Schepel, Childstreet2005 conference, Delft 2005 (Accessed 21 February 2007
- ^ Transport Planning in Groningen, Holland Bicycle Fixation (Accessed 27 January 2007)
- ^ The Impacts of Reallocating road space on Accident Rates: Some Initial Evidence Sally Cairns Note from Road Danger Reduction Forum conference, Leicester, 16 February 1999. (Accessed 7 March 2014)
- ^ "Copenhagens Bicycle Account 2014" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 September 2015. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
- ^ DIVV Amsterdam Archived 27 January 2005 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Cycling in London Report, May 2008 section 4.6" (PDF). tfl.gov.uk.
- ^ "No accidents after road conversion in Norrköpping" (PDF). Newsletter. Shared Space. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2008. Retrieved 18 March 2008.
- ^ Elizabeth Press (30 August 2010). "No Need for Speed: 20s Plenty for Us". Streetfilms. Archived from the original on 27 November 2021. Retrieved 27 November 2011.
- ^ Joshua Hart. "Driven To Excess: A Study of Motor Vehicle Impacts on Three Streets in Bristol UK" (PDF). Walk21. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 April 2012. Retrieved 27 November 2011.
- ^ Traffic safety on one-way streets with contraflow bicycle traffic, Alrutz, D., Angenendt, W., Draeger, W., Gündel, D., Straßenverkehrstechnik, 6/2002
- ^ Le SUL Cyclistes a contresens dans les sens uniques Archived 14 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine Groupe de Recherche et d'Action des Cyclistes Quotidiens, Brussels 2006, (Accessed 27 January 2007)
- ^ "Collection of Cycle Concepts". Danish Roads Directorate. 2000. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 18 March 2008.
- ^ Hanka, Matt; Gilderbloom, John (31 January 2008). "Oped: Time to end one-way thinking". The Courier-Journal. Retrieved 31 January 2015.(subscription required)
- ^ "Traffic calming schemes: One way streets, banned turning movements and no entry restrictions". Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. Archived from the original on 16 May 2010. Retrieved 26 March 2008.
- ^ "Ministerieel rondschrijven betreffende de toepassing van het beperkt éénrichtingsverkeer". Belgisch Staatsblad. 13 November 1998., "Circulaire ministérielle relative à l'application du sens unique limité". Moniteur Belge. 13 November 1998.
- ^ Verkehrssicherheit in Einbahnstraßen it gegengerichtetem Radverkehr Archived 14 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Alrutz, D., Angenendt, W., Draeger, W., Gündel, D., Straßenverkehrstechnik, 6/2002
- ^ Le SUL Cyclistes a congress dans les sens uniques Archived 14 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine Groupe de Recherche et d'Action des Cyclistes Quotidiens, Brussels 2006, (Accessed 27 January 2007)
- ^ Collection of Cycle Concepts Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Danish Roads Directorate, Copenhagen, 2000
- ^ a b Infrastructure position document Archived 9 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Dublin Cycling Campaign (Accessed 27 January 2007)
- ^ a b Layout and Design Factors Affecting Cycle Safety at T-Junctions, Henson R. and Whelan N., Traffic Engineering and Control, October 1992
- ^ a b Pedal cyclists at dual carriage-way slip roads, M.C. Williams and R.E. Layfield, Traffic Engineering and Control, pp. 597–600, November 1987
- ^ Multilane Roundabouts Archived 2 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine, An Information Sheet, Galway Cycling Campaign, February 2001
- ^ "Bike box". National Association of City Transportation Officials. 14 December 2011. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
- ^ Accidents at Three Arm Priority Junctions on Urban Single Carriageway Roads Summersgill I., Kennedy J.V. and Baynes D. TRL Report 184, Transport Research Laboratory, 1996.
- ^ Cyclists and Roundabouts-A review of literature, Allot, and Lomax, 1991
- ^ "The best roundabout design for cyclists. The safest Dutch design described and an explanation of why this is the most suitable for adoption elsewhere". A view of the cycle path. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
- ^ "Spectacular New Floating Cycle Roundabout". Bicycle Dutch. 22 August 2012. Retrieved 9 July 2015.
- ^ a b c Priority for cycling in an urban traffic control system, Stephen D. Clark, Matthew W. Page, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Velomondial Conference Proceedings, Amsterdam 2000
- ^ Traffic Signal Actuators: Am I Paranoid? John S. Allen, 2003 (Accessed 25 March 2008)
- ^ Assessing the Impact of Local Transport Policy Instruments Susan Grant-Muller (Editor), it is Working Paper 549, Institute of Transport Studies, Leeds University, April 2000
- ^ Green wave for cycles Archived 27 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Cycle Campaign Network News, No 85, November 2006
- ^ "Holland-Cycling.com – Signposting". Holland-cycling. Retrieved 28 August 2014.
- ^ "Cycling – Pra Loup". Valée Ubaye. Archived from the original on 5 December 2020. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
- ^ "Legally Speaking – with Bob Mionske: Law of the land". velonews.com. Archived from the original on 11 October 2008.
- ^ Steven G. Goodridge PhD (18 February 2005). "Wide Outside Through Lanes: Effective Design of Integrated Passing Facilities" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2008. Retrieved 7 March 2008.
The function of wide outside through lanes as passing facilities is presented.
- ^ a b Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities Archived 10 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine, European Commission, 1999
- ^ a b Simon Jenkins (29 February 2008). "Rip out the traffic lights and railings. Our streets are better without them". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Retrieved 18 March 2008.
- ^ "'Shared' road schemes paused over dangers to blind people". BBC News. 27 July 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2022.
- ^ "Sustainable Safety". wordpress.com. 2 January 2012.
- ^ "Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology-- – Federal Highway Administration". Archived from the original on 30 May 2010. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
- ^ Michael Baltes (2005), Integration of bicycles and transit, National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board, p. 39,
The first staffed bicycle parking facility in the United States was opened in Long Beach, California.
- ^ Success is on the cards, London Cyclist, June–July 2009, p. 6
- ^ Guide for Employers: Showers, lockers and drying room Archived 19 December 2010 at the Wayback Machine, London Cycling Campaign, 13 September 2006 (Accessed 16 August 2007)
- ^ Staples, Steven. "Holland-Cycling.com – Bicycle parking". holland-cycling.com. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
- ^ Marshall, Wesley E.; Ferenchak, Nicholas N. (1 June 2019). "Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users". Journal of Transport & Health. 13 100539. Bibcode:2019JTHea..1300539M. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2019.03.004. ISSN 2214-1405. S2CID 191824684.
- ^ Volker, Jamey M. B.; Handy, Susan (12 April 2021). "Economic impacts on local businesses of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure: a review of the evidence". Transport Reviews. 41 (4): 401–431. doi:10.1080/01441647.2021.1912849. ISSN 0144-1647.
- ^ Fraser, Simon D.S.; Lock, Karen (December 2011). "Cycling for transport and public health: a systematic review of the effect of the environment on cycling". European Journal of Public Health. 21 (6): 738–743. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckq145. PMID 20929903.
- ^ Gore, Ross; Lynch, Christopher J.; Jordan, Craig A.; Collins, Andrew; Robinson, R. Michael; Fuller, Gabrielle; Ames, Pearson; Keerthi, Prateek; Kandukuri, Yash (24 August 2022). "Estimating the Health Effects of Adding Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths at the Census Tract Level: Multiple Model Comparison". JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. 8 (8) e37379. doi:10.2196/37379. PMC 9453587. PMID 36001362.
- ^ Penney, Veronica (1 April 2021). "If You Build It, They Will Bike: Pop-Up Lanes Increased Cycling During Pandemic". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 April 2021.
- ^ Kraus, Sebastian; Koch, Nicolas (13 April 2021). "Provisional COVID-19 infrastructure induces large, rapid increases in cycling". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (15) e2024399118. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11824399K. doi:10.1073/pnas.2024399118. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 8053938. PMID 33782111.
- ^ Ton Welleman: The autumn of the Bicycle Master Plan: after the plans, the products in: Proceedings of the 8th VELO-CITY Conference, Basel, 26–30 September 1995
- ^ Staples, Steven. "Holland-Cycling.com – Bicycle rental". holland-cycling.com. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
- ^ Cycling for Transportation: The Japanese Example By Paul Dorn (Accessed 27 January 2007)
- ^ Bicycle Access to Public Transportation: Learning from Abroad by Michael Replogle, Journal of the Institute for Transportation Engineers, December 1992
- ^ Taking bicycles on the VRR Archived 19 October 2007 at the Wayback Machine Rheinische Bahngesellschaft AG (Accessed 23 February 2007)
- ^ eCommerce, Deutsche Bahn AG, Unternehmensbereich Personenverkehr, Marketing. "Fahrradtageskarte". Archived from the original on 1 March 2021. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "What are you allowed to bring on public transportation?". Visitcopenhagen. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
- ^ First class to bike class Archived 28 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine Cycle Campaign Network News Archive 2006 (Accessed 23 February 2007)
- ^ "BC Transit – Welcome to Victoria". Archived from the original on 1 May 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
- ^ "New Ways to Explore Acadia". exploreacadia.com. Archived from the original on 12 March 2008.
- ^ "Home". action.act.gov.au. 4 June 2017. Archived from the original on 31 October 2012. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
- ^ "Bikes on ETS". edmonton.ca. Archived from the original on 10 September 2015.
- ^ "TTC Bike Racks". City of Toronto Knowledge Base. City of Toronto. 15 February 2017. Retrieved 12 October 2018.
- ^ "Bikes on Buses :: City of Edmonton". Archived from the original on 27 October 2014. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
- ^ a b "Archived copy" (PDF). www.yourcta.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 September 2000. Retrieved 15 January 2022.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "Pace Bus – Bicycle Racks".
- ^ "Bus 'n' Bike". grt.ca. Archived from the original on 8 February 2011.
- ^ "Metra – Bikes on Trains Program". 9 February 2006. Archived from the original on 9 February 2006. Retrieved 6 March 2018.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - ^ "New rail passenger rights across EU" (PDF).
- ^ Tims, Anna (17 August 2023). "Eurostar derailed my efforts to book a bike on to one of its trains". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
- ^ "L_2021172EN.01000101.xml". eur-lex.europa.eu. Retrieved 2 June 2024.
- ^ "Train Travel with Bicycles | National Rail". www.nationalrail.co.uk. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
- ^ Walker, Peter (4 November 2019). "Do rail companies need to change their bike policies?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
- ^ "Williams-Shapps plan" (PDF).
- ^ "Train Technical Specification" (PDF). p. 60.
- ^ "Cycling by train" (PDF).
- ^ "A guide to cycle tyre sizes | Cycling UK". www.cyclinguk.org. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
External links
[edit]- Bicycle Infrastructure Manuals, a compendium of infrastructure design manuals, cycling master plans and strategy guides
- Urban Bikeway Design Guide from National Association of City Transportation Officials
- Bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands video and blog explaining the Dutch approach of addressing cycling infrastructure safety
- UK cycle infrastructure design guide 2020
- UK cycle rail toolkit 3 (2023)
- CyclOSM and Opencyclemap are global maps of cycling infrastructure
- Bicycle Facilities is a world map and statistics of cycling infrastructure
Cycling infrastructure
View on GrokipediaCycling infrastructure encompasses dedicated roadways, paths, bridges, parking facilities, and traffic controls engineered to enable safe and efficient bicycle travel, often segregated from motorized vehicles to minimize conflicts and encourage utilitarian cycling over short distances.[1][2]
Key variants include painted advisory lanes on streets, buffered lanes with additional space, physically protected cycle tracks using barriers, and off-road multi-use paths, each varying in separation level and suitability for different urban contexts.[3][4]
Nations such as the Netherlands and Denmark exemplify comprehensive systems, with dense networks of segregated paths covering thousands of kilometers, yielding cycling modal shares above 25% in cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, alongside empirically lower per-capita road fatality rates compared to automobile-dominant peers.[5][6]
Peer-reviewed analyses indicate purpose-built facilities correlate with reduced cyclist injury severity and crash rates, while regular cycling use links to 10% lower all-cause mortality and decreased cardiovascular risks, though aggregate safety gains for all users hinge on substantial mode shifts that infrastructure alone seldom achieves without complementary policies.[7][8][9]
Deployment controversies persist, including high upfront costs—often exceeding $1 million per kilometer for protected lanes—debated benefit-cost ratios averaging positive but sensitive to low adoption in sprawling or hilly terrains, and induced demand effects that expand cycling volumes yet may not proportionally displace car trips or emissions.[10][11][12]
History
Origins and Early Adoption
The popularity of bicycles in the late 19th century, following the development of the safety bicycle around 1885, spurred initial demands for improved roadways and dedicated paths to accommodate cyclists. Organizations such as the League of American Wheelmen, founded in 1880, advocated for the "good roads" movement, which emphasized paved surfaces to mitigate the challenges of rutted dirt and gravel paths that hindered bicycle travel.[13] This effort, initially driven by affluent urban cyclists seeking smoother routes for recreation and commuting, laid foundational infrastructure that later benefited automobiles, though dedicated cycling facilities remained limited.[14][15] The first designated bicycle lanes emerged in the United States during this period, with Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, New York, establishing the earliest known example on June 15, 1894. This nearly five-mile stretch featured a central roadway flanked by paths reserved for cyclists, constructed to separate bicycle traffic from horse-drawn carriages and pedestrians amid growing urban congestion.[16] Similar short dedicated paths appeared in other American locales by the 1890s, including city-to-city routes in upstate New York and Denver, often funded by local cycling clubs responding to the bicycle boom's surge in ridership.[17] Early adoption extended to Europe, where experimental cycleways were built alongside highways in the United Kingdom starting in the 1880s, with some persisting into the 1930s, such as those along Western Avenue near London.[18] These facilities prioritized separation from motorized and animal traffic, reflecting causal concerns over safety and efficiency in an era of increasing bicycle use for transport, though widespread implementation was constrained by costs and competing priorities like emerging automobiles.[19] By the early 20th century, such paths influenced urban planning in places like Pasadena, California, with Orange Grove Boulevard incorporating bicycle accommodations around 1900, marking a transition toward more systematic integration in select cities.[20]Mid-20th Century Decline
The proliferation of personal automobiles following World War II fundamentally altered urban transportation priorities, leading to a marked decline in cycling infrastructure investment and usage. In Europe and North America, rapid mass motorization—fueled by economic recovery, cheap fuel, and aggressive automotive marketing—shifted public and policy focus toward car-centric road networks, rendering bicycles obsolete for many commuters. By the late 1950s, car ownership rates surged; for example, in the United States, registered vehicles increased from about 26 million in 1945 to over 70 million by 1960, overwhelming existing streets and prompting expansive highway expansions that bypassed or dismantled nascent cycle facilities.[21] Cycling modal shares, which had comprised 20-50% of urban trips in many pre-war European cities, collapsed during the 1950s and 1960s as distances grew with suburbanization and car dependency took hold. In the Netherlands, per capita bicycle kilometers traveled peaked around 1960 before dropping sharply through the mid-1970s, coinciding with a tripling of car ownership per household; similar patterns emerged elsewhere, with infrastructure like dedicated cycle paths often neglected, converted to vehicular lanes, or deemed unsafe amid rising motor traffic volumes.[22][23][24] In Britain, post-war reconstruction plans, such as those outlined in 1940s urban reports, resurrected pre-war emphases on motorways while allocating minimal funds for cycle networks, resulting in the abandonment of interwar-era tracks amid prioritizing "smooth traffic flow" for automobiles.[25] This era's policy decisions amplified the decline through institutional biases toward automotive engineering standards, which viewed cyclists as secondary users incompatible with high-speed roads. Engineering bodies, including those in the U.S. and U.K., resisted segregated bike facilities, arguing they encouraged risky behaviors or underutilization, as evidenced by low uptake in experimental 1960s British new towns like Stevenage, where purpose-built cycleways saw minimal adoption due to preferences for car convenience and perceived status.[26][27] Consequently, by the 1970s, cycling infrastructure in most Western cities had atrophied, with maintenance budgets redirected to accommodate vehicular dominance, setting the stage for decades of auto-prioritized urban planning.[28]Revival and Modern Expansion
The revival of cycling infrastructure began in the early 1970s in response to rising traffic fatalities, particularly among children, amid growing automobile dominance. In the Netherlands, the "Stop de Kindermoord" (Stop Child Murder) campaign, launched around 1972, protested the 500 annual child deaths and over 3,300 total traffic fatalities recorded in 1971, attributing them largely to motor vehicles.[29] This grassroots movement, involving demonstrations and occupations of dangerous sites, pressured governments to prioritize cyclists and pedestrians, leading to policies that restricted car use and funded extensive networks of separated cycle paths starting from the mid-1970s.[30] [31] By the 1980s, these investments had reversed declining cycling rates, with bicycle infrastructure expansion directly contributing to safer streets and renewed utility cycling.[32] Denmark experienced a parallel resurgence, driven by similar safety concerns and the 1973 oil crisis, which highlighted vulnerabilities in car-dependent systems. Copenhagen and other cities invested in comprehensive bikeway networks, including the initial cycle tracks that evolved into modern "cycle superhighways." The first superhighways opened in 2012, connecting suburbs to urban centers with upgraded paths featuring better signage, lighting, and priority signals; by 2024, the network spanned 16 routes across 21 municipalities, with plans for over 60 routes totaling more than 850 kilometers.[33] [34] These developments correlated with increased cycling modal share, reaching 62% of Copenhagen commutes by the 2010s, supported by empirical data showing reduced injury rates on protected facilities.[35] Modern expansion accelerated globally from the 2000s, influenced by environmental goals, health benefits, and post-2008 economic analyses favoring low-cost alternatives to car infrastructure. European cities like those in the Netherlands and Denmark continued scaling networks, while North American examples emerged in Portland and Vancouver with local street bikeways that boosted ridership.[36] Internationally, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy's campaign from 2021 added over 1,200 miles of lanes across 34 cities, including expansions in Bogotá and Seville that increased cycling trips by integrating protected paths into urban grids.[37] [38] Recent investments, as detailed in World Bank analyses, yield returns through safety gains—such as 10-20 times lower fatality risks on separated paths—and modal shifts, though success depends on network connectivity rather than isolated segments.[39] In the U.S., 39 cities improved bike scores by 20+ points since 2020 via targeted projects aligning with safety and connectivity principles.[40]Definitions and Classifications
Core Terminology
A bikeway denotes any road, street, path, trail, or way—marked by signage, pavement markings, or physical features—that is designated for bicycle use, either exclusively or shared with pedestrians or other non-motorized users.[41] This term, as defined in standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), encompasses a broad range of facilities integrated into transportation networks to support cycling for commuting, recreation, or freight.[42] Distinctions arise based on location (on-street versus off-street), separation from motor vehicles, and user exclusivity, with terminology standardized in North American guidelines like those from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and AASHTO to guide design and implementation.[43] Bicycle lanes, also called bike lanes, are on-street facilities consisting of a striped portion of the roadway, typically 4 to 6 feet wide, designated by pavement markings and signage for preferential bicycle use adjacent to motor vehicle lanes, without physical barriers.[44] These lanes direct cyclists in the same direction as adjacent traffic, aiming to reduce encroachment by vehicles through visual cues, though they lack separation and are subject to dooring risks from parked cars.[43] Buffered bicycle lanes extend this by adding a 2- to 3-foot unpaved or striped buffer zone between the bike lane and vehicle travel lane or parking, enhancing perceived safety without full physical protection.[44] Cycle tracks, often termed protected bicycle lanes, provide exclusive bicycle space immediately adjacent to the roadway but separated from motor vehicle traffic by physical barriers such as curbs, bollards, planters, or raised medians, typically operating as one-way facilities on each side of the street.[44] This configuration combines the accessibility of on-street infrastructure with the security of separation, with widths generally 5 to 10 feet depending on expected volumes and directionality; two-way cycle tracks on one side require wider designs to accommodate bidirectional flow.[45] In contrast, shared-use paths are off-street facilities physically separated from roadways by distance or barriers, designed for joint use by cyclists and pedestrians, often in greenways, parks, or utility corridors, with minimum widths of 10 feet to manage mixed-speed users.[44] Terminology varies regionally; for instance, European standards from bodies like the Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR) may use "cycle path" for off-street exclusive routes and "cycle lane" for unmarked or minimally marked on-street accommodations, differing from North American emphasis on marked lanes and tracks.[43] These definitions, drawn from engineering guides, prioritize functional separation and user safety over casual usage, informing facility selection based on traffic volumes, speeds, and urban context.[42]Segregation Versus Integration
Segregation in cycling infrastructure refers to physically separating cyclists from motor vehicles, typically via dedicated cycle tracks or paths with barriers, curbs, or grade separation, while integration involves cyclists sharing roadways with vehicles, often with minimal demarcations like painted lanes or advisory sharrows.[46] This distinction forms a core debate in urban planning, balancing collision avoidance against potential hazards at intersections and maintenance of traffic flow. Empirical studies consistently indicate that segregation reduces cyclist injury risks compared to integrated setups, though integration may suffice in low-volume, low-speed environments.[47][48] Safety data from multiple analyses favor segregation. A Montreal study found injury rates per kilometer traveled 28% lower on protected bike lanes versus parallel streets without such facilities.[49] Similarly, a review of route types showed cycle tracks associated with 28% lower relative injury risk compared to on-street cycling.[47] Physically protected paths correlated with 23% fewer injuries overall, outperforming painted lanes, which themselves reduced risks by up to 90% relative to unmarked roads in some contexts.[48] In contrast, sharrows—shared lane markings—have shown no safety gains or even increased risks in certain evaluations, as they fail to alter driver behavior sufficiently.[50] Dutch infrastructure, emphasizing segregated paths alongside intersection treatments, contributes to low bicycle-motor vehicle crash rates, with separation decreasing such incidents.[51] Segregation also promotes higher cycling uptake by enhancing perceived safety, particularly for novice or risk-averse users. Facilities separating cyclists from traffic encourage mode shifts, with segregated infrastructure linked to increased bicycle mode share and overall safer systems via the safety-in-numbers effect.[52][52] However, drawbacks include elevated pedestrian-cyclist conflicts on multi-use paths and complexities at junctions where turning vehicles cross paths, necessitating advanced designs like priority signals.[53] Integration, while cheaper and preserving road space, exposes cyclists to vehicle mass and speed differentials, yielding higher per-kilometer crash risks in high-traffic areas.[54] A 13-year U.S. analysis confirmed only physically separated lanes measurably improved safety outcomes, underscoring that mere markings offer limited protection.[55] Contextual factors influence efficacy: segregation excels on arterials with speeds over 30 km/h, while integration via traffic calming may integrate effectively on residential streets. Peer-reviewed evidence, drawn from observational and quasi-experimental designs, supports segregation's superiority for injury prevention, though long-term data gaps persist on indirect effects like modal shifts' broader safety implications.[56] Planners must weigh these against implementation costs and urban geometry, avoiding overreliance on integration where empirical risks outweigh convenience.[46]International Standards and Variations
No single binding international standard governs cycling infrastructure design, though supranational bodies provide influential guidelines. The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) adopted the Guide for Designating Cycle Route Networks on September 27, 2024, which outlines principles for developing continuous, direct, and safe cycle networks, including signage, integration with public transport, and prioritization of segregated paths where motor traffic volumes or speeds pose risks.[57] This guide draws from practices in high-cycling European nations to promote connectivity and user comfort across borders.[57] In Europe, national standards emphasize physical separation and generous dimensions. The Netherlands' CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, a key reference updated in recent editions, specifies minimum cycle path widths of 2 meters on roads with 50 km/h speeds to allow safe overtaking, with wider provisions (up to 2.5 meters) for higher volumes; it mandates segregation from motorized traffic on arterials and cyclist priority at junctions via advanced stop lines or separate phasing.[58][59] The manual also addresses bicycle highways—dedicated high-capacity routes—and forgiving designs like rumble strips to deter encroachment.[60] Similar approaches prevail in Denmark and Germany, where standards require buffered or raised cycle tracks on urban roads exceeding 30 km/h, reflecting empirical data on reduced conflicts from separation.[61] The European Union's Declaration on Cycling (2017, reaffirmed in subsequent policies) advocates separated cycle paths, protected intersections, and secure parking as core elements of a safe system, integrated into urban mobility frameworks like the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy.[62] These guidelines influence member states but allow national adaptations, with northern European countries achieving denser networks (e.g., over 35,000 km of designated paths in the Netherlands as of 2020).[63] In contrast, North American standards prioritize accommodation within multimodal roadways. The U.S. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 5th edition released December 2024, defines facility types including striped bike lanes (desirable width 1.8 meters), buffered lanes, and multi-use paths, but permits shared lanes on low-volume streets without mandating separation on higher-speed roads.[64][59] It emphasizes context-sensitive design based on traffic volumes and speeds, with shared-use paths preferred off-road but cycle tracks optional on urban arterials.[65]| Region/Country | Key Guideline | Lane Width (Desirable) | Segregation Emphasis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | CROW Manual | 2.0 m (urban roads) | High: Mandatory physical barriers on arterials >50 km/h |
| European Union | Cycling Declaration & Urban Mobility Framework | Varies by member state | Protected paths and junctions prioritized for safety |
| United States | AASHTO Guide (5th ed., 2024) | 1.8 m (bike lanes) | Moderate: Buffered or separated optional based on context |
Design and Technical Features
Bikeway Configurations
Bikeway configurations designate specific spatial arrangements for cyclists on or alongside roadways, ranging from unmarked shared spaces to fully segregated paths. These designs aim to balance cyclist accommodation with constraints like right-of-way availability, traffic volumes, and speeds, with empirical evidence indicating that greater physical separation correlates with reduced crash risks per distance traveled in controlled studies.[43][68] Configurations are selected based on motor vehicle speeds below 35 mph favoring minimal interventions like painted lanes, while higher speeds or volumes necessitate barriers to minimize lateral interactions.[69] Conventional bike lanes use pavement markings to delineate a 4- to 6-foot-wide (1.2- to 1.8-meter) space adjacent to curbs or parking, offering visual but not physical separation from vehicles. Implemented widely in the U.S. since the 1970s, they delineate cyclist positioning and encourage motorists to pass at least 3 feet away where legally required, though enforcement varies.[69] Safety analyses show they reduce dooring incidents compared to mixed traffic but exhibit higher injury rates than protected options in urban settings with speeds exceeding 25 mph.[47] Buffered bike lanes extend conventional lanes with a 2- to 4-foot (0.6- to 1.2-meter) painted strip between the bike lane and traffic, increasing lateral buffer without reclaiming roadway width. This added separation enhances perceived comfort for less-confident riders, as documented in design guides, and correlates with fewer close passes in observational data from retrofitted streets.[70] Protected bike lanes, also termed cycle tracks, incorporate physical barriers such as bollards, planters, or curbs to isolate cyclists from motor vehicles, typically 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 meters) wide. One-way versions align with traffic flow, while two-way place bidirectional paths on one roadway side; the latter facilitate space efficiency but introduce crossing risks for turning vehicles. A multicenter study across Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver reported cycle tracks yielding 8.5 injuries per million bicycle-kilometers, lower than bike lanes (28.3) or mixed-traffic arterials (up to 67).[47] Contrarily, analyses of U.S. installations highlight elevated midblock crash risks from driveways and turns, with two-way tracks showing 11 times higher injury odds than parallel mixed lanes in some datasets, underscoring the need for robust intersection treatments.[71][72] Contraflow bike lanes permit cyclists to traverse one-way streets against motor vehicle direction, often via painted lanes or short protected segments, reducing detour distances by up to 30% in dense grids. European implementations, such as in Germany, demonstrate feasibility with signage and minimal width (1.5 meters), though they demand vigilant marking to avert head-on conflicts.[70] Multi-use paths provide off-road separation, shared with pedestrians or other non-motorized users, typically 8 to 12 feet (2.4 to 3.7 meters) wide and graded for drainage. Suited for low-conflict environments like parks or greenways, they achieve near-zero motor vehicle interaction risks but face user conflict issues, with speeds differing by 5-10 mph between cyclists and walkers prompting segregation recommendations in high-volume areas.[43]| Configuration | Key Features | Typical Conditions (Speed/Volume) | Relative Safety Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional Bike Lane | Pavement striping only | ≤35 mph, <15,000 vehicles/day | Reduces dooring vs. shared; higher injury rate than protected (28.3 vs. 8.5 injuries/million km)[47] |
| Buffered Bike Lane | Added painted buffer | Similar to conventional; retrofit-friendly | Improves passing distances; comfort gains without physical barriers[70] |
| Protected Cycle Track (One-Way) | Barriers/curbs, street-level or raised | >25 mph, high volumes | Lowest crash risk in studies; effective for uptake[68] |
| Two-Way Cycle Track | Bidirectional on one side | Space-constrained arterials | Space-efficient but 11x higher injury risk at midblock vs. mixed traffic in some U.S. data[71] |
| Multi-Use Path | Off-road, shared use | Low motor traffic; recreational | Minimal vehicle risk; internal conflicts require width/speed controls[43] |
Street-Level Modifications
Street-level modifications encompass on-road alterations such as pavement markings, buffers, and low-profile physical separators that delineate bicycle space within the roadway cross-section, distinguishing them from fully separated or elevated facilities. These changes reallocate curb-to-curb space from motor vehicles to cyclists, often by narrowing travel lanes or removing parking, to enhance cyclist comfort and reduce conflict risks like sideswipes and dooring. Design guidelines from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recommend minimum bicycle lane widths of 5 feet, with buffers adding 2-3 feet of striped separation to discourage vehicle encroachment.[73] Conventional painted bike lanes use solid white or yellow lines to mark a dedicated 4-6 foot space adjacent to the curb or traffic, signaling to motorists the need to maintain lateral clearance. Empirical assessments show these markings alone provide modest traffic calming, with vehicle speeds dropping by up to 1-2 mph in some configurations due to perceived lane narrowing, though they offer limited physical protection against errant vehicles.[74] Colored pavements, such as green or red surfacing in conflict zones, further emphasize cyclist priority and have been associated with reduced intersection encroachments in observational studies.[75] Buffered bike lanes extend painted lanes with an additional 2-4 foot unpaved stripe, increasing lateral separation without requiring permanent barriers. Research indicates that striped buffers modestly improve bicyclist comfort ratings, with perceived safety scores rising by 10-20% over standard lanes in surveys of potential users, as the extra space allows for evasive maneuvers.[76] Physical buffers using flexible posts or concrete curbs elevate protection levels, aligning with findings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) that such delineators reduce crash risks at non-junction segments by channeling motorist behavior.[77] Contraflow lanes enable bidirectional cycling on one-way streets via markings and signage, typically 5-7 feet wide with advisory dashed lines where space constrains. These modifications have demonstrated uptake increases of 20-50% in constrained urban grids, per post-implementation counts in European cities, by expanding network connectivity without major reconstruction.[78] Advisory cycle lanes, marked with dashed lines, prioritize cyclists on low-volume roads but yield to turning vehicles, serving as interim measures during pop-up implementations that can transition to full protection. Maintenance challenges, including faded markings and debris accumulation, necessitate regular repainting, with U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines advocating thermoplastic materials for durability exceeding five years under moderate traffic.[79]Intersection and Junction Treatments
Intersections and junctions represent high-conflict locations in cycling networks, where cyclists face elevated risks from motor vehicle turning maneuvers, sideswipes, and right-of-way violations, accounting for a substantial portion of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes.[80] Effective treatments prioritize visibility enhancement, path separation, and temporal prioritization to mitigate these hazards through geometric and operational modifications.[81] At signalized intersections, common interventions include bicycle advance stop lines, or bike boxes, which position cyclists ahead of queued vehicles to reduce encroachment during green phases; empirical assessments indicate these features promote safer cyclist positioning and lower stress levels compared to mixing zones, though user perception varies.[82] Protected intersection designs further advance safety by deflecting cycle tracks away from curb lines to improve sightlines for turning drivers, incorporating corner islands and tight radii to slow vehicles; simulation studies project up to 80% reductions in bicycle-vehicle conflicts with such configurations.[81] Real-world evaluations of protected bike lane treatments at intersections, including bend-outs and curbside separators, have documented decreases in total and bicycle-specific crashes, albeit with persistent risks from wrong-way riding.[83] For unsignalized junctions, raised bicycle crossings elevate cycle paths to pedestrian levels, compelling vehicles to yield and reducing speeds; a quasi-experimental analysis in Denmark found these installations improved per-bicyclist safety by 20%, alongside a 50% increase in cyclist volumes, with additional gains from optimized layouts yielding 10-50% further reductions in accidents.[84] Colored pavements across intersection aprons delineate cyclist priority zones, enhancing driver awareness; international reviews highlight their role in supporting cohesive networks, though effectiveness depends on consistent application and enforcement.[75] Roundabouts present unique challenges, with multi-lane, high-speed designs correlating to higher cyclist injury risks due to yielding complexities and lane changes; a Danish study reported 93% elevated odds of injury at such facilities compared to signalized intersections.[80] Single-lane roundabouts with dedicated cycle lanes or integrated paths fare better, particularly when central islands exceed 20 meters in diameter to facilitate safer entry speeds, but overall, separated off-carriageway paths remain the lowest-risk option for cyclists.[85][86] Right-turn-specific countermeasures, such as protected slip lanes or two-stage turn boxes, address hook conflicts, with Oregon research quantifying safety gains from alternative controls like signs and markings that outperform unprotected merges.[87] Despite these advancements, empirical data underscore the need for site-specific evaluations, as infrastructure benefits can interact with traffic volumes and user behavior, occasionally yielding neutral or context-dependent outcomes.[9]End-of-Trip Facilities
End-of-trip (EOT) facilities encompass amenities provided at destinations such as workplaces, public buildings, or transit hubs to support cyclists upon arrival, including secure bicycle parking, showers, changing rooms, lockers, and accessory services like repair stations or drying areas.[88] [89] These facilities address practical barriers to cycling, particularly for commuters who arrive sweaty or need to store gear securely, thereby facilitating the transition from cycling to other activities.[90] Secure storage options, such as enclosed cages or individual lockers, mitigate theft risks, which surveys indicate as a primary deterrent to bicycle commuting.[91] Empirical studies demonstrate that EOT facilities positively influence cycling propensity, with secure indoor parking and shower access cited as key enablers for workplace commuters.[91] A 2024 discrete choice experiment among office workers valued bike storage at approximately €1.50 per day in willingness-to-pay terms and shower/changing facilities at €0.80 per day, suggesting these amenities can enhance property appeal and indirectly boost cycling uptake by reducing perceived inconveniences.[92] In contexts like Australian guidelines, facilities are recommended to include segregated, conveniently located showers and changing areas near entrances to minimize user friction, with evidence from user feedback indicating higher satisfaction and repeat usage when privacy and cleanliness are prioritized.[88] Design standards emphasize accessibility, durability, and integration; for instance, provisions for e-bike charging and tool-equipped repair stands accommodate modern bicycles, while gender-neutral or family-oriented changing spaces align with diverse user needs.[93] However, implementation varies, with under-provision in many urban settings linked to lower commuter rates, as cyclists report reluctance without reliable hygiene options post-ride.[94] Overall, while broader infrastructure like paths drives volume, EOT facilities provide targeted causal support for sustained modal shift, evidenced by their correlation with increased workplace cycling in facility-equipped buildings.[92]Empirical Evidence on Safety and Usage
Crash and Injury Data
In the United States, bicyclist fatalities averaged 883 per year from 2017 to 2021, with an estimated 41,615 injuries in 2021 alone, amid low cycling mode share of under 1% of trips.[95] The fatality rate stands at approximately 6 per 100 million kilometers cycled, roughly six times higher than in many Western European countries with extensive cycling infrastructure.[96] Absolute crash numbers have risen alongside increased cycling volumes post-2010, with fatalities up 87% from a low of 623 in 2010 to record highs by 2023, though per-cyclist exposure metrics are key to assessing infrastructure efficacy.[97] Protected cycle tracks consistently show the lowest injury risk among infrastructure types, at about one-ninth the rate of multi-lane arterial roads without separation in comparative route studies.[68] Physically separated paths correlate with 23% fewer injuries from motor vehicle collisions compared to unmarked routes, while painted bike lanes without barriers reduce injury risk by up to 90% relative to no designated facilities.[48] Shared lane markings (sharrows), however, demonstrate no significant reduction in crash or injury rates versus unmarked streets and may fail to alter driver behavior sufficiently to enhance safety.[98] Before-after analyses of infrastructure installations often reveal absolute crash increases of around 8%, but these are outweighed by 50% greater bicycle volume growth, yielding net safety gains per kilometer traveled.[80] In the Netherlands, where segregated cycling networks cover much of the urban grid, the cyclist fatality rate was 15.66 per billion kilometers cycled in 2023, comparable to or lower than peer nations despite 27% mode share and rising absolute deaths from e-bike adoption.[99] Serious injuries exceed two-thirds of cyclist casualties, concentrated at intersections, yet per-exposure rates remain among Europe's lowest, attributed to physical separation and priority rules rather than helmet mandates.[100][101] Cross-national data confirm higher cycling volumes inversely correlate with fatality rates per distance, underscoring infrastructure's role in enabling safer mass adoption over low-volume, high-risk environments.[101]Cycling Uptake and Modal Shift
![Cyclists at Hyde Park corner roundabout in London.jpg][float-right] Cycling uptake, defined as an increase in the absolute number of cycling trips, and modal shift, the replacement of car, walking, or public transit trips with cycling, are key outcomes evaluated in assessments of cycling infrastructure efficacy. Empirical studies indicate that protected bike lanes, which physically separate cyclists from motor vehicles, are associated with substantially higher cycling volumes compared to standard painted lanes. For instance, a 2025 study analyzing U.S. census data found that block groups with protected bike lanes experienced bicycle commuter increases 1.8 times larger than those with standard lanes, with ridership nearly doubling relative to unprotected facilities.[102] Similarly, a causal analysis of bikeshare data reported an 18% increase in trips at adjacent stations within 12 months following protected lane installations.[103] In European contexts, comprehensive networks have driven notable modal shifts. Seville's 2007-2013 expansion of an 80-mile protected bike lane system elevated cycling's share of trips from 0.6% to 7% over six years, accompanied by reduced car use.[104] A quasi-experimental study in the UK evaluated new walking and cycling routes, finding a net increase of 0.16 active travel trips per person per week post-intervention, though the proportion of trips specifically by bike showed limited change without complementary measures like promotion.[105] Systematic reviews corroborate that high-quality segregated infrastructure promotes uptake, with meta-analyses estimating protected lanes can boost weekly cycling time by up to 28 minutes per person, outperforming softer interventions like education.[106] However, outcomes vary by context, with stronger effects in dense urban areas and networks offering connectivity. In car-dependent regions, isolated infrastructure yields modest shifts, often attracting novice or recreational cyclists rather than displacing significant car trips; for example, U.S. greenway additions doubled nearby commute rates from 1.8% to 3.4% within three miles, but absolute modal shares remained low absent broader cultural or policy support.[107] COVID-era pop-up protected lanes in European cities further evidenced rapid uptake, with ridership surges tied to perceived safety gains, though sustained shifts required permanence and integration.[108] Critics note potential endogeneity, where infrastructure follows demand, but quasi-experimental designs mitigate this, affirming causal links in multiple settings. Overall, evidence supports infrastructure as a necessary but insufficient driver, amplified by cohesive networks and behavioral nudges.Comparative Effectiveness Studies
Comparative effectiveness studies on cycling infrastructure primarily evaluate differences in safety outcomes, cyclist uptake, and behavioral responses across configurations such as protected cycle tracks, buffered or painted bike lanes, and unmarked roadways. Physically separated cycle tracks, which use barriers to isolate cyclists from motor vehicles, consistently demonstrate superior performance in reducing crash risks compared to painted bike lanes, which rely on striping without physical separation. For instance, a 2021 analysis of vehicle passing distances in urban settings found that protected bike lanes increased average lateral clearance from 93 cm to 166 cm, rendering them approximately 10 times more effective at mitigating close passes than painted lanes.[109] Similarly, a longitudinal evaluation in U.S. cities indicated that streets with protected lanes experienced 44% fewer cyclist fatalities and 50% fewer serious injuries over 13 years relative to comparable streets without such infrastructure.[110] In terms of injury rates, protected infrastructure outperforms less robust designs, though effectiveness varies by location. A Montreal study reported lower cyclist injury rates on protected bike lane segments than on parallel streets, but benefits diminished at intersections due to turning conflicts, highlighting the need for integrated junction treatments.[49] Painted bike lanes show mixed results; while some analyses, including a 2009 review of multiple studies, found they reduced collision frequency or injury rates in five out of examined cases, others suggest they may inadvertently increase risks by encouraging drivers to encroach closer to cyclists, with passing distances averaging 1.25 feet nearer than on unmarked roads.[7][111] Overall, a 2018 ecological study across roadway types estimated up to 25% lower crash risks for cyclists on segments with any bike lanes versus none, with separation enhancing this effect where traffic speeds exceed 30 km/h or lanes are narrow.[112] Regarding usage and modal shift, protected facilities drive higher cycling volumes than painted alternatives. Research in U.S. protected lane implementations showed they attracted 1.8 times more riders than equivalent painted lanes and 4.3 times more than streets without markings, attributing this to perceived safety gains that overcome barriers for novice or risk-averse users.[113] However, these uptake effects are context-dependent; a 2025 study on segregated lanes versus shared paths noted that while separation boosts recreational cycling, integrated designs may suffice for low-traffic areas without proportional safety trade-offs.[114] Critically, correlational designs in many studies limit causal attribution, as self-selection by confident cyclists into infrastructure can inflate apparent benefits, though before-after analyses with control sites mitigate this.[9]| Infrastructure Type | Safety Effectiveness (Relative Risk Reduction) | Usage Increase (vs. No Infrastructure) | Key Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protected Cycle Tracks | 44-50% fewer fatalities/serious injuries; 10x better passing distance[110][109] | 4.3x higher volumes[113] | Intersection vulnerabilities; higher installation costs |
| Painted Bike Lanes | Up to 25% lower crashes; inconsistent passing distances[112][7] | 1.8x higher volumes[113] | Potential driver encroachment; less effective in high-speed traffic |
| No Markings (Reference) | Baseline risk | Baseline usage | Highest perceived stress for cyclists |
Economic and Societal Impacts
Installation and Maintenance Costs
Installation costs for cycling infrastructure vary significantly based on the type, location, materials, and integration with existing roadways. Painted bike lanes, often added during routine repaving or restriping, typically cost $1 to $5 per linear foot in the United States, equating to approximately $5,000 to $26,000 per mile excluding right-of-way acquisition.[115] More substantial interventions, such as buffered or protected lanes with physical separation like posts or curbs, range from $30,000 per mile for buffered markings to $2.3 million per mile for two-way raised cycle tracks, reflecting added expenses for barriers, drainage, and utility relocation.[116] In urban European contexts, simple cycle tracks can cost under €50,000 per kilometer, while complex protected facilities in dense areas may exceed €10 million per kilometer due to land constraints and engineering demands.[117] Bogotá's Ciclovía network exemplifies lower-end construction at $147,000 per kilometer, achieved through standardized designs and economies of scale across 245 kilometers built by 2011.[118] Factors influencing installation expenses include terrain, traffic volume, and whether projects leverage concurrent road reconstruction to minimize disruption. Bicycle boulevards, involving traffic calming on low-volume streets, cost $250,000 to $500,000 per mile in U.S. assessments, primarily for signage, pavement markings, and minor resurfacing.[119] Protected facilities in high-density settings, such as those analyzed in Danish studies, can reach $3 million per kilometer when including intersections and signaling.[120] Costs per kilometer for protected lanes differ regionally: lower in developing contexts like Latin America due to simpler materials, versus higher in Europe and North America from stringent safety standards and labor rates, as detailed in global comparisons.[12] Maintenance costs are generally lower than for motorized roadways, given reduced wear from lighter bicycle traffic, but require regular upkeep for signage, markings, and debris removal. Annual repainting of lane striping averages $1 per linear foot in U.S. municipal estimates, with symbols replaced every five years at $165 each.[121] In Bogotá, maintaining 245 kilometers cost $2 million in 2010, or roughly $8,000 per kilometer annually, covering sweeping and repairs.[118] Broader models estimate maintenance at 7% of initial construction costs per year for comprehensive networks, though painted facilities incur minimal ongoing expenses beyond periodic restriping.[120] Protected elements like bollards or raised barriers demand additional inspections for damage from vehicles or weather, potentially elevating costs in high-exposure urban zones, though empirical data indicate these remain fractional compared to asphalt road maintenance dominated by heavy vehicle degradation.[115]| Infrastructure Type | Installation Cost Range (per km) | Maintenance Estimate (annual, per km) | Source Region/Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Painted Bike Lane | $10,000–$50,000 | $2,000–$5,000 (restriping) | United States |
| Buffered/Protected Lane | $100,000–$3,000,000 | 5–7% of construction | Europe/U.S. (e.g., Denmark) |
| Raised Cycle Track | $1,000,000–$10,000,000+ | $10,000–$20,000 | Urban Europe |
| Bicycle Boulevard | $400,000–$800,000 (per mile equiv.) | Low (signage/traffic calming) | United States |
Quantified Benefits and Health Outcomes
Cycling infrastructure contributes to public health by facilitating increased physical activity through higher cycling participation and distances traveled. Systematic reviews of interventions, including the construction of dedicated cycle paths and lanes, demonstrate that such infrastructure effectively boosts cycling rates, with effect sizes varying by context but consistently positive for utility and recreational use.[123] In urban settings like Portland, Oregon, investments in bicycle networks alongside promotion efforts have been modeled to yield substantial gains in population-level physical activity, with cost-effectiveness ratios indicating benefits at approximately $0.52 per additional minute of moderate activity achieved.[124] Quantified health outcomes from induced cycling include reductions in all-cause mortality. Meta-analyses of observational data link regular cycling—often enabled by supportive infrastructure—to a 10% lower risk of premature death, independent of other physical activities, based on dose-response relationships from cohorts totaling over 200,000 participants.[125] In the Netherlands, where infrastructure density supports 23% of adults cycling for transport daily, population-level modeling using the Health Economic Assessment Tool estimated 6,500 deaths averted in 2010 alone, equating to €19.5 billion in value from mortality reductions, though this reflects sustained cultural and infrastructural factors rather than isolated builds.[126] Economic valuations of these health gains highlight net positives when infrastructure spurs modal shifts from sedentary travel. In three Canadian cities (Victoria, Kelowna, Halifax), bicycle infrastructure investments from 2010–2018 generated $5.48 to $7.26 in health-related returns per dollar spent, driven by 1–5% increases in cycling kilometers, corresponding to lower incidences of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity; these estimates incorporated induced demand via elasticity models but excluded injury risks for conservative benefit attribution.[127] Active commuting via cycling correlates with 15–30% reduced risks of cardiovascular events and mental ill-health in longitudinal studies, with infrastructure proximity amplifying uptake among previously inactive groups.[128][129]| Study Context | Key Metric | Quantified Outcome | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netherlands (2010) | Mortality aversion from transport cycling | 6,500 deaths postponed; €19.5 billion value | [126] |
| Canadian cities (2010–2018) | Health economic return on infrastructure investment | $5.48–$7.26 per $1 invested | [127] |
| Meta-analysis (various cohorts) | All-cause mortality reduction from cycling | ~10% risk decrease | [125] |
| Portland modeling | Cost per additional activity minute | ~$0.52 for moderate cycling gains | [124] |








