Planning for cycling at scheme level

I was prompted to write this post after looking in detail at a number of scheme proposals – both cycling schemes and more general transport/streetscape schemes. It seems to me that cycling still isn’t usually mainstreamed, even into the cycling schemes! Hence this is my attempt to put down some ideas about how planning for cycling might work better. I’d like to feel that there is a process which sets a high general standard for cycling environments, which can then be negotiated down where necessary; for example, where there are high quality alternative cycle links nearby. At the moment, it seems like what’s happening is still often piecemeal, limited and small-scale negotiation up from ‘not very good at all’. I don’t think this approach to provision will get us to the necessary transformation for cycling. It risks wasting the time and energy of a lot of talented and hard-working people (planners, engineers, policy-makers, advocates…) to little effect.

Key points

1. Like two-way pedestrian flows, two-way cycle flows should be the default, whatever the restrictions on motor traffic.
2. A clear level of service indicator should be applied initially to all links within a well defined core cycle network, as well as being used to ensure general transport/streetscape schemes improve conditions for cycling elsewhere.
3. At the heart of this indicator should be the maximum speeds and volumes of motor traffic with which cyclists are expected to share space. These criteria should be set at a level that would enable mass cycling, passing the ‘unaccompanied twelve year old’ test. (‘Would you want a twelve year old to cycle here on her own?’)
4. Supplementary criteria within the full indicator should relate to other dimensions of cycling environment quality; for example, air pollution levels, surface quality, cycle capacity.

Why aren’t we designing for cycling?

Because of my various hats (academic, advocate, user) I’m increasingly shown schemes and asked to comment on them. Some have been more general transport schemes on which a ‘cycling perspective’ is sought (e.g. these two in Westminster). Others have been cycling schemes; for example, one South of the river, which I can’t name here.

I have to say I’ve been disappointed in many of the schemes. In one sense it is good that cycling representatives/experts/users are consulted. But (a) it needs to make a difference on the ground, and I’m not convinced this is happening yet, and (b) more consultation is not inherently always good. I don’t want to be consulted on a daily basis on how my council sort out every detail of their services, I want them to provide good services (that’s their job) and only ask for my input when necessary. Clearly we’re not at this stage in respect to cycling. While there’s been a broader shift in attitudes to cycling policy in London (and some other places in the UK), this hasn’t generally fed through into street design and planning.

So how do we get there? How can local authorities build cycling in to what they do, so that experts/advocates/users’ expertise and experience can be drawn on in a targeted manner, rather than struggling to add cycling into schemes post hoc?

The South London example I mentioned is a cycling-specific scheme on a busy road, which plans some protection for cyclists along the way (acceptable width separated tracks/semi-segregated lanes). So far, so good. However, whenever it becomes a bit harder to provide space for cycling along the way, the ‘cycle facility’ disappears; cyclists are then forced to move out and overtake parked vehicles, jostling with motor traffic in a narrow carriageway where peak traffic volumes mean there will be one motor vehicle every couple of seconds. Would you want your twelve year old child to ride to school in that kind of cycling environment? (And why are these kinds of conditions permitted to exist on recommended / signed cycle routes?)

As an aside – I wonder whether a test of subjective safety might be conducted while writing up scheme plans. Replace ‘cyclists’ with ‘your children’, ‘your Granddad’, ‘little Kevin’, ‘your Aunt’, and so on. For example,
“Cyclists will benefit from an ‘early start’ facility allowing them to set off up to 5 seconds before motor traffic” would become “Your children will benefit from an ‘early start’ facility allowing them to set off up to 5 seconds before motor traffic”. “Cyclists will ride in the widened left-hand general traffic lane” would become
“Your Granddad and Aunt will ride in the widened left-hand general traffic lane”. The ‘subjective safety’ test here would be – if the rewritten sentence is amusing, something has gone wrong.

I worry that we are still not designing for cycling, even when we’re trying to. As per Mayor’s Vision, we’re meant to be planning for a wider range of cycling abilities and preferences. Not just planning for a minority – which I believe is a very small minority of even current cyclists – who actively like fighting motor vehicles for space alongside parked cars whose doors might open at any time. So in South London, if we are to maintain a road with high volumes of motor traffic, this would mean providing high quality protected space for cycling. In my view there really is no point providing two-thirds of a small scheme to this standard and the remaining third to the standard of ‘paint some bicycles on the street to remind drivers there may be a cyclist trying to squeeze through the traffic queue.’

Of course, if the street in question were very quiet – it isn’t – then painting bicycles on the street might be fine. There would be no need for protected space if, as in De Beauvoir Square, Hackney, motor vehicles have been largely excluded from the route (due in that case to a well planned closure of streets to motor traffic providing a relatively direct and easy to follow E-W route for bicycles).

So, what would I like authorities to do when planning for cycling in the context of specific schemes?

First, networks. Of course, planning needs to be network and integral. We need to be aiming at a dense network of routes that are positively welcoming for cycling. Ideally, as in The Netherlands, pretty much any road or street would be suitable for pretty much any cyclist, thanks to a combination of filtered permeability, street design, protected facilities for cycling, and restrictions on on-street car parking; with specific solutions used depending on the type of road in question. I would view a Bike Grid (or core cycle network) as a step on the way there – a network of routes that is safe and pleasant, with a regularly monitored service standard that needs to be met throughout that network (no weak links – the idea being that you’d be confident that wherever you went on the Bike Grid, you’d get a good cycling environment).

But given an authority is developing a scheme, either specifically for cycling, or a broader streetscape/transport scheme, how can its planners best check what they should be doing from a cycling perspective?

My first point is network-related. Always, always, two-way cycling should be permitted, to maximise the potential cycling network, whatever else you do. Decades of planning for cars have left a legacy where too often the direct route is a car route and cyclists are expected to wiggle, even though we are meant to be promoting cycling, which involves physical effort and so should be made as easy and direct as possible. (Moreover, many cars now have GPS, making way-finding through complex road systems relatively easy, while cyclists generally don’t, so expecting them to cope with different routes for different directions creates additional disbenefit). Allowing two-way cycling is one small and relatively easy way of starting to redress the balance.

Contraflow cycling has been implemented safely in the City of London even on very narrow streets. Further afield, in higher-cycling countries it’s assumed that you provide two-way cycling throughout the road network. Contraflow cycling should be a no-brainer: insisting cyclists travel in one direction only should be seen as being like insisting that pedestrians only walk in one direction where there are one-way streets. (Of course, in very rare occasions we do – usually temporarily – limit pedestrian movements in this way, and I’m happy to concede that in perhaps one in a thousand cases we may need to maintain one-way cycling).

So, this would be the first thing I’d recommend the authority do. Wherever changes are being made and one-way cycling still exists, legalise contraflow cycling as part of the scheme. There should also be an authority-wide programme to legalise contraflow cycling more broadly. But a scheme should never be proposed that retains one-way cycling restrictions, unless accompanied by some excellent and evidenced reasons.

Second, analyse motor vehicle speeds and volumes. In London, we are lucky – there is a relatively large amount of data on motor vehicle volumes, and authorities have privileged access to this data. I would expect that when developing a scheme with cycling in mind (whether or not it’s primarily a ‘cycling scheme’), the authority would first of all examine motor traffic volumes and speeds on the route, and ask the question – Is this road or street suitable for mass cycling? (Or, would I want my twelve year old son to ride his bike here?) The second question should then of course be, how are we going to make sure it is suitable?

Unfortunately, the schemes that I get shown rarely have (current or projected) motor vehicle speed and volume data attached to them. Yet this is fundamental in assessing whether cycling is suitable only for the 2% (who can cope with narrow cycle lanes on busy multi-lane roads – although many would rather not), or also for the 90% (who need calm and pleasant routes, however achieved). Once the traffic environment is considered, for most of the schemes I have seen, the routes in question are not now suitable for mass cycling, nor will they be after the proposed changes have been made.

Cycling Last?

One problem seems to be that the process still encourages planners to think about cycling last, even for ‘cycling’ schemes. Perhaps we need something like ‘Bus Priority’ for the core cycle network, and for any additional schemes where there’s a serious intention to cater for mass cycling.

Cycle Priority would mean that very early on, cyclists’ needs would be considered – initially, the need for cyclists not to have to share space with high volume or high speed motor traffic. So, for the South London scheme I mentioned, one option would be to gate the road, closing it off to through motor traffic, while retaining access for the (relatively infrequent) buses and emergency service vehicles. This would likely make motor traffic speeds and volumes low enough for cycling to be pleasant and safe for most potential cyclists.

Another option might be to move on-street car parking to side streets, generating sufficient space for high-quality protected lanes or tracks along the full length of the scheme. As a cyclist, I don’t have an immediate preference for either option. While both separate cyclists from excessive volumes of motor traffic, one involves ‘segregation’ and one doesn’t. But either (done well! – with no bumpy, obstructed lanes, or cycle-unfriendly pinch points, etc.) could create a route where cycling is inclusive, convenient, quick and pleasant. Perhaps, if the cycle planning process had taken the steps I suggest here, the next step would be to consult local residents to find out which they prefer.

Ensuring Network Quality

How do we ensure that in Andrew Gilligan’s words, London’s cycle network is ‘done well’ this time? Once a core cycle network has been defined, it can be tested in two ways.

Firstly, how good is the network as a network – its ability to serve key origins and destinations; its density and directness – how the whole system functions as a network. The Dutch CROW manual, among other guides, has suggestions as to how we can measure and evaluate these kinds of network attributes. Planners can also regularly monitor what proportion of cycle traffic actually uses the network, as another way of checking that it actually covers the majority of journeys people want to make.

Secondly, the quality of the individual sections or links, which is what I’m focusing on here. For this, the key test would be the speed and volume of motor traffic with which cyclists need to share space. Like network coverage, this can be monitored and updated over time. We can imagine a map showing sections in green (where speeds and volumes are sufficient), amber (to be monitored closely as speeds or volumes are approaching the trigger point) and red (sections awaiting improvement).

Of course, we don’t just want to know that there is protected infrastructure or a quiet street – the quiet street may have uncomfortable speed humps, or the protected infrastructure may be poorly maintained, for example. So more criteria will be needed to assess section links (see the LCC’s Love London, Go Dutch matrix as an example of such criteria, designed for use in assessing scheme proposals). We can imagine a second map showing to what extent the network meets the expanded set of criteria, and this data, reviewed regularly, could be a trigger for targeted, often relatively small-scale improvements.

Final thoughts? If we get the broad framework right, ask the right questions, we collect the right data, regularly assess and review how we’re doing, constantly improve… I think we can do anything. London – with which I’m most familiar at the moment – has impressive networks of cycling expertise and experience, and pockets of strong political and policy commitment. If we create good networks, the strength of our growing cycling cultures mean the potential for growth is substantial. But if we keep on in the same, piecemeal manner, with processes that keep putting cycling last… I think we will fail. In twenty years’ time what has happened recently will look like a blip and people will wonder why we ever thought it would be different this time. Here’s hoping for the former.

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Planning for cycling at scheme level

  1. Simon Parker says:

    I like to be able to think that if nobody falsifies what I am saying in my blog, or in my comments on other people’s blogs, then this must mean that they don’t disagree with me. Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen this way, as we all know. As the song reminds us, we simply hear what we want to hear, and disregard the rest.

    I try to do to others as I would be done by. I want people to criticise my work because I want it to be credible, and it wouldn’t be so if it could not withstand to be scrutinised by my peers. It is in this spirit that I add my thoughts here.

    First, on a point of fact, you write about whether individual schemes would be suitable only for the 2% who can cope with a low-engineered cycling environment, or for the 90% who need calm and pleasant routes. Where have you got your numbers from?

    Secondly, you write: “We need to be aiming at a dense network of routes.”

    To my knowledge, there is only one publication out of Europe to explain how to develop such a network, and as far as I can tell, I am the only campaigner in this country who has actually read it cover-to-cover.

    I am talking, of course, about Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities, and it says: “The network can be introduced on the basis of an overall plan (preliminary plan).”

    That is to say: “All the installation measures which [do not require the public to be consulted (i.e. ‘soft’ measures)] may be applied without major risk of error or loss […] Given their low cost, the small amount of extra work which they entail and the possibilities of corrections in the case of error, such measures may be adopted automatically.”

    It continues: “Even if the impact of such measures is not massive, it will be real.”

    This approach is described by Cycling: the way ahead as “a prudent course to follow”, but astonishingly, you seem to be disagreeing with it.

    “In my view,” you write, “there really is no point providing two-thirds of a small scheme to [a relatively good] standard and the remaining third to the standard of ‘paint some bicycles on the street to remind drivers there may be a cyclist trying to squeeze through the traffic queue.’”

    In your view? Am I expected to accept a way of thinking without proof?

    The Europeans talk about “the improvement of cyclists’ safety, based on the implementation of ‘soft’ measures in the short-term, and ‘hard’ measures in the medium-term” (as here, for example). Why do you think this approach would be inappropriate for this country?

  2. We have tried soft measures in London, it was the LCN and it failed to improve the modal share for cycling beyond the single figures I would suggest. Now is the time for London and other cities to do it better and provide protected cycle infrastructure. As it happens I was on a bit of the LCN out here in Outer-London which is all advisory lanes and ASLs with traffic blocking them both, so I ended up overtaking on the offside to get anywhere – no 12 year old will do that to get to school. Soft measures may have been cheap on the LCN, but for serious change we need serious money and politicians serious about restricting some traffic and a lot of parking. If you really want some sport, try the A118 out in East-London – LCN at its finest!

    • Simon Parker says:

      I have been doing this since 1999. Please don’t tell me about the LCN. Please don’t treat me like I don’t know what I am talking about. The LCN was never made to work, for one thing; it lacked density, and connectivity, and directness of route, for another. So really, please don’t tell me about it.

      Like I say, we hear only what we want to hear. I am saying Network First and then a separation of functions. But you don’t hear this. You hear something completely different.

      You think I am not serious about cycling? I have spent 12,000 hours drawing lines on a map of London. Do you really think I am not being serious? Network first, and then a separation of functions. Do you understand, Ranty?

  3. The A118 is LCN and it runs from the A12/A127 out in the far east all the way to Stratford and it connects all of the town centres and railway stations in between. I don’t think you could make this route more direct as a commuter corridor for example. I quite agree with the concept of dense networks, and routes that need to connect the places people want to go. My point is that we need to massively increase the funding and political will to make the radical changes we need.

    • Simon Parker says:

      I agree that we need to massively increase both the funding and the political will to make the radical changes that we need, but I also think that to a large extent we have to root our campaigns in the world as it is, and not just in the world as it ought to be. When you wrote about Markham’s Chase recently, you intuitively understood how best to make the minimum change for the maximum effect, and all I am suggesting is that we would do this sort of thing on a city-wide scale.

      The case is, it is relatively easy to stop a ball from rolling when it is at a standstill. You just need to stand there, with your arms stretched out in front of you, Cnut-like, and refuse to budge. However, once the ball is rolling, assuming it is big enough, then any Cnuts who try to stand in the way would just be bowled over. This is why the eastern philosophers talk about zero to one being the hardest step to take. Once you have gone from zero to one, it is not so difficult to go from one to two, and then from two to three, and so on.

      A cycle network “introduced” to a minimum level of functioning represents movement. Crucially, it would not be held back by the planning process, which in this country, can add years and years and years to a project. The idea is to try to cut through all of that sort of stuff to begin with, and get the network up and running. I have no problem with parts of it being very good, so long as the introduction of the whole of it is not delayed by these works.

      Incidentally, the issue I have with trying to develop a network which could be used by an unaccompanied 12-year old child is that it is the equivalent of trying to go from zero to five (or something) in a single bound. In other words, it is poor philosophy.

      As Somerset Maugham has noted: “It’s a funny thing about life; if you refuse to accept anything but the best, you very often get it.”

      • Simon Parker says:

        After several long walks with the dog, I have now persuaded myself that the Somerset Maugham quote disagrees with the main thrust of my message. Funny, I had read it the other way for quite some time. But even so, I still maintain that refusing to accept anything but the best would be much more likely to reap dividends working from the solid foundation provided by a functioning cycle network.

        Further, whilst I know many people feel that things like repeat markers or route confirmation markers laid down on the road surface would be “weedy”, I resolutely believe that as an interim measure, they would at least make conditions for existing cyclists safer than they currently are, and are most definitely better than nothing.

        Finally, I am firmly of the view that the introduction of a cycle network, albeit one which functions at a minimum level to begin with, would encourage “the mass of non-cyclists who are most likely to take up cycling again” (to quote Cycling: the way ahead). These are the people on the margins, whom Roger Geller describes as The Enthused and Confident. Developing a network which could be used by this group of people should make it possible to get up to a modal share of 5-6-7% relatively quickly and relatively painlessly.

  4. Jim Moore says:

    I found it a bit difficult to comment on this post due to the two time settings i.e. “The Now” which poses the question of how do we get from here to there (where “there” is reaching the mindset of our countries adopting the NL’s cycling policies); and the “Now That We’re Here” future in which we’ve democratically agreed to adopt the NL’s policies. If we could magically jump to the latter then it’s probably quite easy to decide what to do: i.e. simply copy what the Dutch did/do (you’ll have to pardon my Netherlands Tourettes Syndrome as I’m not going to beat around the bush saying “international best practice” when there’s only one place to look).

    My comments follow. Please note that apart from these I agree with everything else in the post and have already started using the subjective safety test of replacing “cyclists” with “your children”.

    Twelve years old is too old especially when the Dutch are currently aiming to reduce their solo cycling age target from eight to six years, at least for the bike ride to school. The actual age we set is very important as it defines how we want our children and their guardians to be able to live, and as a direct consequence it defines the transport network infrastructure we build.

    I see a problem with Key Point 2, which splits the road/street system into “links within a well defined core cycle network” and “cycling elsewhere.” I believe it is vital that we adopt a policy that the existing road/street network *is* the cycling network, except for freeways dedicated to high-speed inter-city motor vehicle use and mass transit routes, which are the only exceptions.

    And just a typo: “My first point is network-related. Always, always, two-cycling should be permitted” should be “two-way cycling”. I initially confused this with riding abreast a.k.a. “conversation cycling” which is also highly desirable.

  5. I have been critical of CS2 in London as it does pretty much bugger all to protect users, but the way finding is excellent – you only risk getting lost when the route ends at the City! I will be giving CS3 a go soon as it looks much better.

    Markham’s Chase was interesting as it is an example of the dense network in action, my point in my original response is that the direct dare I say commuter routes (at least in the east of London) are essentially paint and signs on the main roads and we cannot do anything with them to get more people cycling.

    Actually, while I would not subscribe to something is better than nothing as the something’s can be pretty poor, perhaps we need to target junctions and get them right first and the links will follow.

    Whichever way we cut it, things are quite interesting at the moment.

  6. Simon Parker says:

    I totally agree. Nothing is better than something. And we don’t need to reference this argument, do we? We don’t need to quote anyone. What would be the point?

    When Cycling: the way ahead says: “The level of minimum functioning is a prudent course to follow”, we can say, “Ah, yes, but you’re forgetting that this minimum level can be pretty low in this country—you know, like really minimum—more minimum than even minimum—and that’s no good, so we’ll just do something much more complicated first, like sort out the dangerous junctions, and get them right, and then we’ll do the simple thing. Okay? After all, as Warren Buffett has noted: “There seems to be some peverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult.”

    “Now, TfL have identified 500 dangerous junctions, and they’ve agreed to sort out 35 of them this year, so at this rate it should only take about 14 years before we can think about introducing the network. But that’s all right, isn’t it? That’s a better plan, surely. Better than doing something else, because sometimes doing something else can be “pretty poor”. No matter that the design process often takes many iterations or cycles before we can be happy with the final result: we need to get it right first time, don’t we?”

    Oh, yes, we’re so blinded by ideology that we don’t need to quote anyone from Europe. After all, it might blunt our sense of what we feel to be ‘right’. There’s one publication out of Europe to answer the question, Where to begin? But you know what? We can completely ignore that, because when it comes to cycling, we know best.

    Oh, one last thing. We need to completely ignore the power of networks. Hope that’s not a problem. Cyclists in the City reports, “Bike paths need to flow like bloodstreams: We need networks, not snippets….” But we can say, “Sorry, we need to sort out the snippets first!” And not just sort them out. Oh no, that’s not good enough. They have to be delivered to the highest possible standard.

  7. Childbacktandem says:

    Why do we always talk about a 12 year old child?
    We need our kids to be able to ride to school when they start secondary school at 11 years old. If they can’t ride to school in Year 7, they generally miss out on cycling for ever.
    11 is the age that they do their Bikeability Level 2; it’s meaningless if they still can’t use their bikes after doing it
    Please start thinking and talking about the 11-year olds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.