|
|
Segregated cycle facilities(Redirected from Bicycle path)
Segregated cycle facilities may consist of a separate road, track, path or lane that is designated for use by cyclists and from which motorised traffic is generally excluded.
TerminologyOff Road: Cycleways/Bike trailsThe term Cycleway (UK & Ireland) or Bike Trail ("Class 1 bikeway"; U.S.) is generally used to denote a roadway dedicated to cycle traffic on its own separate right-of-way. This may include a separate pedestrian zone or path. In some cases, pedestrians and cyclist traffic are expected to share the same road section. In the latter case, the term multi-user path or recreational path may sometimes be used instead. Off Road: Cycle track/SidepathA Cycle track (UK & Ireland) or Sidepath (U.S.) is used to denote a footway or sidewalk type structure that has been designated for use by cyclists and is attached to an existing roadway. In the UK, the term Cycle track can also include a marked portion of a roadway for bicycle operation i.e. a Cycle lane, as well as a separated bicycle way see UK Department of Transport Legal Definition. In Ireland the legal term Cycle track also covers Cycle lanes marked on the carriageway but only if accompanied by a specific sign. The US term Sidepath does not include bike lanes. On Road: Cycle lanes/Bike lanesA Cycle lane (UK) or Bike lane ("Class 2 bikeway"; US) is a traffic lane marked on an existing roadway or carriageway and generally restricted to cycle traffic. Explanatory note: TerminologyFor the purpose of accurate discussion this article observes the following conventions.
HistoryPre motorisationAt the start of the 20th century, the bicycle was well on its way to becoming a mass form of transport in North America and Europe. This created pressure to improve the existing, often poorly surfaced, roads and tracks for use by cyclists. Simultaneously concerns arose regarding conflicts between cyclists, horse traffic and pedestrians. This led to sections of routes being upgraded to provide smoother surfaces and/or separate portions for distinct groups. One example of an early segregated cycle facility was the nine-mile, dedicated Cycle-Way that was built in 1897 to connect Pasadena, California to Los Angeles. Its right of way followed the stream bed of the Arroyo Seco and required 1,250,000 board feet (2,950 m³) of pine to construct. The roundtrip toll was US$.15 and it was lit with electic lights along its entire length. The route did not succeed, and the right of way later became the route for the Arroyo Seco Parkway, an automobile freeway opened in 1940.[1] Post motorisation (Pre World War II)With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to the attainment of mass-motorisation. Accordingly, a mass program of cycle track/cycle path construction was implemented see Expansion of motorised traffic. In addition, new laws were imposed to force cyclists to use segregated cycle paths. In the UK, similar moves were initiated but ran into trenchant opposition from cycling groups. In particular the Cyclists' Touring Club organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to used such devices see 1935 mass cyclists demonstrations. The CTC was successful and the use of cycle tracks largely fell out of favour in the UK. In Germany, cyclists' organisations were outlawed. However, it is not clear if this was due to disputes over transport policy, or wider political disputes. Post World War IIPost-war German governments chose to continue the transportation objectives of their National Socialist predecessors, hence cyclists were viewed as an impediment to motorised traffic to be excluded and restricted whenever feasible. These policies eventually resulted in Germany largely eliminating cycling as a significant form of transport. In the UK, little use of separate cycleway/cycle track systems took place except in the so-called "new towns" such as Stevenage and Milton Keynes. From the end of the 1960s in Nordic countries, the Swedish SCAFT guidelines on urban planning were highly influential and argued that non-motorised traffic must be segregated from motorised traffic wherever possible. Under the influence of SCAFT guidelines cyclists and pedestrians were essentially treated as a homogenous group to be catered for using similar facilities. The SCAFT guidelines strongly influenced cities such as Helsinki and Vasteras to build large cycle path networks. By the late 1960’s and 1970’s, with the cyclists mainly gone, many German towns actually began removing the cycle tracks so as to provide more car parking capacity. Increasing traffic congestion and the 1970s oil shocks contributed to a resurgence in cycling in some countries. However, outside of SCAFT inspired developments in Nordic countries, the use of segregated cycle facilities was mainly confined to University towns with established populations of bicycle users. 1980s and 1990sThe 1980s saw the start of experimental cycle route projects in Danish towns such as Arhus, Odense, and Herning. In addition, the 1980s saw the Netherlands begin a large program of cycle facilities construction as part of the so-called "bicycle masterplan". Following the "bicycle boom" of the early '80s, German towns also began revisiting the concept. The use of segregated cycle facilities is a central dogma of many organisations associated with the environmental movement. Accordingly, the rise of the "Green" movement in the 1990s has also been accompanied by vocal calls for the construction of "cycle networks" in many countries. This has led to various high profile "cycle network" projects examples of which can be found in Montreal, Dublin and other cities. The safety of segregated cycle facilitiesThe issue of the safety of segregated cycling facilities has been one of extreme controversy since the 1930s. Since that time, the established cycling lobby has taken a critical and measured view of their utility and value. On the other hand, the proponents of segregated cycling facilities frequently proclaim them as being necessary to the provision of a "safe" cycling environment. However, in many cases their proponents have no established interest or expertise in cycling promotion and may include representatives of various interests such as the motoring/roads lobbies, traffic engineers, the environmental lobby, political parties, the health sector etc. In contrast to such claims, reviews of the international literature suggest a predominant finding associating the use of roadside urban segregated cycle paths with increases, some significant, in the rate and severity of car/bicycle collisions see Cycle Path Safety Summary of Research. The argument has two sides involving both direct and indirect safety. Direct safety
Urban roadsThe source of the direct safety problem lies in the nature of the predominant car/bicycle collision types. The majority of collisions on urban roads occur at junctions and involve conflicts between turning vehicles. Rear-end type collisions are only a major factor on arterial or interurban roads. Accident analysis suggests that there is merit in providing segregated space for cyclists on arterial routes with few junctions to minimize the number of collisions. For urban roads, with many junctions, accident analysis suggests the opposite, that segregated cycling facilities are likely to increase collisions. These conclusions are supported by the experience of countries that have implemented segregated cycling facilities. In the US1, UK2, Germany, Sweden3, Denmark4, and Finland5, it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle tracks/sidepaths results in significant, up to 12 fold, increases in the rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1991 European conference on cycling, the term Russian roulette was openly used to describe the use of roadside cycle paths.
Rural / Arterial roadsThe use of appropriately designed segregated space on arterial or interurban routes does appear to be associated with reductions in overall risk. In Ireland, the provision of hard shoulders on interurban routes in the 1970s reportedly resulted in a 50% decrease in fatal collisions. It is reported that the Danes have also found that separate cycle tracks lead to a reduction in rural collisions. Indirect safetyThere is robust evidence that one of the main factors influencing the individual safety of cyclists is the base number of cyclists using the roads. See safety in numbers effect. Therefore it is arguable that if a segregated cycle facility does genuinely act to create a more attractive cycling environment, and actually attracts more people to cycle, then this effect should contribute to an overall increase in safety. In addition it has been shown that the health benefits of regular cycling significantly outweigh the risks due to traffic danger. Therefore, any measures that promote cycling should produce an overall societal health benefit. However given their historical purpose, a positive relationship between the use of segregated cycle facilities and increased cyclist numbers cannot be assumed.
Remedial measuresVarious remedial measures have been developed in an attempt to solve the identified safety problems of segregated cycle facilities. Examples include the addition of a separate system of traffic signals for bicycle traffic. This can get extremely complex, particularly if there are already separate traffic signal phases for pedestrians, motorised traffic and public transport modes such as trams and/or buses. The need for a separate system of traffic lights also means that building a functioning, completely segregated, cycle path system is a non-trivial exercise in terms both expense and engineering effort. In addition, various road markings have been developed in an attempt to remedy the issue of increased junction collisions. Examples of these include the use of special road markings e.g. “elephants footprints” and special coloured treatments using red, green or blue coloured tarmac. Although such treatments are often proclaimed as safety "improvements" in many cases the actual intent is to restore the level of safety that existed before the marking/construction of the segregated cycle facility. Segregated cycle facilities and transportation cyclingThe use of cycle facilities as a means of promoting motoring at the expense of cyclists’ access has established historical precedent. Despite this, it has become customary for certain commentators, particularly those associated with the environmental and/or motoring lobbies, to proclaim segregated cycle facilities as the "measure of choice" for restoring cyclist access to western cities. Perhaps understandably, this is highly controversial and is a source of, occasionally quite bitter, dispute. See also cycle path debate. In contrast, in 1996 the Cyclists' Touring Club and Institute of Highways and Transportation jointly produced a set of guidelines which placed segregated cycling facilities at the bottom of any hierarchy of measures designed to promote cycling 6. EvidenceInternationally, the evidence of cyclist numbers does not appear to support claims for such an inherent cycle promotion effect. Between the late '80s and early '90s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (the equivalent of US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure. However, this vast investment failed to produce any practical increase in cycling levels 7. In the UK, a ten year study of the effect of cycle facilities in eight UK towns and cities found no evidence that they had resulted in any diversion from other transport modes to cycling 8. Similar findings had been reported for Denmark in 1989, where it was found that cycle facilities produced no increase in cycling unless accompanied by active traffic restraint measures: a finding that immediately provokes speculation as to the primary reasons for people switching back to bicycles. In Denmark as a whole, cycling levels have stayed roughly stable with minor fluctuations since 1975, this is despite the huge cycling infrastructure that has been established in the intervening period. The Dutch experience is broadly similar. In contrast, in the late 1970s and early 1980s cycling underwent robust growth in Germany, the UK and Ireland with little or no investment in cycling infrastructure. Most recently, the construction of 320km of "Strategic cycle network" in Dublin has been accompanied by a 15% fall in commuter cycling and 40% falls in cycling by second and third level students. Cycle facilities vs. facilitating cyclistsA key criticism made by the opponents of such schemes is that the focus is often on constructing "cycle facilities" rather than "facilitating cyclists". It is acknowledged that there are many cities that have extensive cycle networks and also high levels of cycling. However, the most prominent examples tend to be compact, often mediaeval, university cities. This common theme suggests that other underlying factors are driving the levels of cycle use. Possibly best that can be said, is that in various cities, the safety of cycling, and the number of cyclists present, will result from a complex interaction of spatial planning, population density, legislative environment, and wider traffic/transportation management policies. Within this mix, segregated cycle facilities can play either a positive or negative role, but this role will be secondary to other factors. Cycle facilities in promoting recreational cycling
The use of separate cycleways or bike trails as a means of promoting recreational cycling is much less controversial and in Northern European countries, extensive interurban cycleway networks can be found: Denmark has had a national system of cycle routes since 1993. These may use roads dedicated to exclusively cycle traffic or minor rural roads whose use is otherwise restricted to local motor traffic and agricultural machinery. In Northern Europe, cycling tourism represents a significant proportion of overall tourist activity. The UK and US have recently implemented similar programs such as the UK's National Cycle Network. In the US, the Rails-to-Trails program seeks to convert abandoned railroad beds to recreational trails. See alsoExternal links
References and further readingNotes
Additional reading
|
|
The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy
|
BiologyDaily.com 2005. Legal info Privacy |