Encouraging cycling: small outlay and big returns

Pete Zanzottera explains why considering cycling in urban planning is a win-win situation.

The Cycling Delivery Plan published by the UKs 1837 Department for Transport (UKDfT) contains 13 mentions of ‘cycle proofing’ a term that has been growing in use, but what does it mean, and have we got the wrong word? Should we instead be proving that we can create infrastructure that invites cyclists into the transport network?

Arguably we cycle proofed most of our towns and cities from the 1960s onwards with successive land use and transport policies. These in turn made most of the road network appear too hazardous for most people to cycle and placed out-of-town shopping and business centres too far away.  I’m old enough to have grown up cycling to the shops, to school, to work, or just to go and see my friends, so this double whammy of making the roads too dangerous to cycle and planning new shopping centres in retail parks is something I’ve lived through, rather than been born into. Throughout my life I’ve cycled nearly every day although people like me have become something of a rather endangered species.

Cycle proving is a better description of what we need to do. Creating the favourable conditions for cycling to rise is much the same as proving bread. Learning to make bread and cycle routes needs a new set of skills, and practice, as well as a continual flow of the right ingredients – in the case of growing cycling these are new infrastructure and funding, along with encouragement. In the absence of a dedicated infrastructure fund for cycling, road and transport planning authorities can at least make sure that all new transport schemes are cycle proved.

In the two most recent cycle proving schemes I’ve worked on, it was shown, at an early business case stage, that multimillion pound benefits can be added to a major scheme for modest changes in the design to encourage cycling. Cycling is particularly useful in boosting the cost benefit analysis and it is to the mutual benefit, rather than being perceived as an additional construction cost as happens later on when it is discovered that cyclists have inadvertently been left out or the design is to outdated standards. By the time major schemes are built, much of today’s cycle infrastructure will be outdated and a crucial element of cycle proving is ensuring the longevity of design, one of the tasks ascribed to the Cycle Proving Working Group which the DfT has gathered together.

The cycle proving I’ve worked on has consisted of two parts: qualitative and quantitative. In my view, it’s important to look at a major scheme in terms of what is already there, and what is likely to be there by the time construction is finished.  Cycle proving new schemes is not simply considering an end-to-end route treatment as this may not be a journey that many cyclists will make. Instead it requires a functional understanding of where new cycle facilities within major transport schemes will represent;

• a direct route in the cycle network;

• an intersection with an important cycle route; or

• a new transport node to be joined in.

This in turn can inform the design and the types of facilities that are designed, and this can then be taken forward to the appraisal or quantitative assessment of the benefits.

Qualitative Assessment

The discipline of cycle proving requires a detailed understanding of the emerging standards in the UK (London Cycle Design Standards, and those of the Cycling Cities and others) for cycling infrastructure design and this is one of the tasks for the Cycle Proving Working Group. I have seen a growing understanding of how to cater for cycling along links (the stretches between junctions), including when and where to segregate cyclists from vehicular traffic, where shared spaces may be used, how to cater for pedestrians alongside cyclists, and how to deal with bus stops.

A good example of major scheme cycle proving is in the documents published by the public enquiry into the proposed Leeds new generation transport Trolleybus scheme, which runs along some of the most cycled roads in north Leeds, including the University district.  To carry out the cycle proving, the route was split into sections of similar infrastructure and each was appraised by looking at current provision and comparing this with what was planned in the design documents. Table 1 and 2 show the rational and results of the qualitative assessment. The scores were applied and weighted for safety (40%), continuity of provision (20%), quality of design (20%) and attractiveness / ambience (20%). 

Quantitative Assessment

The additional benefits that improved cycling facilities can provide for major schemes can be estimated from the indicative design. Although there has been discussion about how good appraisal tools are, WebTAG (the UKDfT’s transport analysis guidance) provides guidelines for indicative types of infrastructure and the ones used for the Leeds Trolleybus route are included in Table 3.

The quantification and monetisation guidance contained in WebTAG suggests inclusion of health improvement, journey ambience enhancement, absenteeism reduction and environmental benefits as well as accident rate reduction. Journey time savings are also suggested but these were not included in the Leeds Trolleybus appraisal as the facilities were not expected to reduce cyclists’ journey times.

One of the most important parts of quantification of benefits is to estimate the numbers of existing and new cyclists. In many parts of the world, including the UK, this creates a difficulty as cycle flows are not well documented and not measured consistently. Where there is data, and where there are existing numbers of cyclists, the benefits accrue greatly when the infrastructure is improved. However, demand estimation is an issue for all kinds of cycling (and indeed walking) infrastructure. Some of the issues centre around transference of cyclists from parallel routes, or those that may not have been counted as they were cycling on the footway. Other issues stem from supressed demand, for instance survey data shows that many would like to cycle (for instance to school) but say they would only do so if they had what they perceive to be safer cycle facilities.

The monetised values for new cyclists on higher quality cycle infrastructure are very high, and therefore the calculations of benefits can be swayed greatly by estimating demand. In my experience, where there are existing cyclists and reliable data, there is a degree of confidence in predicting benefits but where demand and data is poor, the calculations show few benefits as there is little on which to base the calculations. This was borne out in the case of the Leeds Trolleybus appraisal because north Leeds, and the selected corridor in particular, has both numbers and data for cyclists whereas south Leeds has far fewer cyclists and less reliable data. Also in south Leeds, some sections of the route are not planned on existing roadways and therefore there are no cycling measurements to base any uplift in cycling.

Figure 1 shows the monetised benefits that were calculated for the Leeds Trolleybus scheme and presented to the public inquiry. The ‘Cycling and Walking Appraisal of NGT facilities’ has a commentary on the values and how these were applied to this case which are available www.ngtmetro.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294968504.

In conclusion

Most cities and towns are now developing a clearer idea of their cycle network and the new cycling delivery plan is encouraging local authorities to create partnerships with the UKDfT, local economic partnerships and wider stakeholders on how the network can be delivered. A new major scheme is an ideal opportunity to increase connectivity for active modes and reduce severance.
Cycle proving represents an important piece of building a cycle network, as it is most often the bigger schemes that offer a barrier to cycling in the future, either physically at key locations, or psychologically in the case of community severance. As cities and towns densify and grow, the pathways for active travel have to be planned into all major schemes and although the costs may rise, the benefits will rise much more.