Search results

Purpose – Bicycle riding provides a sustainable and affordable solution to many of the significant problems associated with motorised transport and physical inactivity. The provision of infrastructure plays an important role in encouraging people to begin and subsequently continue to ride bicycles and to do so safely.

Methodology – This chapter describes different types of on- and off-road infrastructure and reviews studies of their effects on rider numbers and safety. In addition, it looks at the roles that end-of-trip facilities and bikeshare programs can play in contributing to bicycle use and general transport sustainability.

Findings – Infrastructure characteristics can influence both perceived and objective levels of safety. It is important to identify and avoid treatments that increase perceived safety but are actually less safe. The type of infrastructure needed or desired differs between current and potential riders and according to trip purpose. Well-designed marked bicycle lanes on roads can reduce crash rates. Safety at intersections can be improved by: advanced green lights for cyclists, short cuts for right-hand turns, brightly coloured bicycle paths and advanced waiting positions for cyclists. Off-road facilities are generally safer, but intersections with roads must be carefully treated. Shared paths and footpaths are risky for older pedestrians (and older cyclists).

Implications – In many countries the provision of more infrastructure that increases the perceived safety of riding is needed to encourage cycling, particularly transport cycling and cycling by women.

Purpose – This chapter provides a think piece on economic evaluation and policy for cycling. Bicycle investments are often motivated by a desire to improve health, the environment and congestion conditions. However, we argue that since the bicycle is a part of the transport system, it should be evaluated as such. Focusing on implications for cycling appraisal in general, we also discuss two conflicting trends in Stockholm: a sharp decrease in cycling in the outer areas, and a sharp increase in the inner parts.

Methodology – We use (i) travel survey data to analyse the potential to reduce congestion through improvements for cyclists, (ii) travel survey data from 1986 to 1987 and 2004 and bicycle counts over 25 years and (iii) a value of time survey of Stockholm cyclists including questions of exercise habits.

Findings – Additional benefits in appraisal from reduced car traffic and improved health seem to be small. Given bicyclists’ high values of time and low investment costs, bicycling investments are still likely to be socially beneficial. The conflicting bicycling trends can be explained by (i) increased road congestion and improved bicycle infrastructure, (ii) increased visibility of bicyclists generating a ‘positive spiral’, (iii) increased interest in physical fitness and changes in the relative prices of cars versus central residences turn cycling into a high-status mode and (iv) in peripheral areas, increasing distances and less dense land use patterns decrease cycling levels.

Practical implications – The results underscore the need for dense, mixed-use spatial planning and ‘smart’ marketing using the effects of cyclist visibility to reinforce the ‘status’ of cycling.