Cycles of all sorts

The 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 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. In contrast, planners at the Directorate Infrastructure Traffic and Transport in Amsterdam place cyclists and motorists together on roads with speed limits at or below 30 km/h, but segregate them by means of bicycle lanes when motorists are permitted to travel faster.

Evidence

Between the late '80s and early '90s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (the equivalent of US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure, yet cycling levels practically stayed the same. However, monetary investments in the road and public transport networks during the same period were many times that spent on cycle provisions in the same period, and car ownership did increase by 49% in the same period without a reduction in cycle use.

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  A similar finding had been reported for Denmark in 1989, where it was found that there was no correlation between cycle facilities and increased cycling unless active traffic restraint measures were also present. In Denmark as a whole, the establishment of a huge cycling infrastructure has been accompanied by cycling levels that have stayed roughly stable (with minor fluctuations) since 1975.

In contrast, in the late 1970s and early 1980s cycling underwent robust growth in Germany, the UK and Ireland while there was little or no investment in cycling infrastructure. The construction of 320km of "Strategic cycle network" in Dublin been accompanied by a 15% fall in commuter cycling and 40% falls in cycling by second and third level students.

Cycle facilities vs. facilitating cyclists

A 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 readily apparent 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 has been taken to suggest that other underlying factors are driving the levels of cycle use.

Some commentators even argue that the "cause and effect" being seen is actually the reverse of that which is often claimed: That it is the presence of large numbers of cyclists that tends to precipitate the construction of segregated cycle facilities. Possibly the 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. The evidence suggests that within this mix, segregated cycle facilities can play either a positive or negative role, but this role will be secondary to other factors. The utility cycling article provides a more detailed treatment of these issues.