Cycling Super Highways

Rachel Smith of AECOM says that seven-meter wide cycling "super highways" are the X-factor to transform our cities, our lifestyles and our health and revolutionize the way we travel.

The western world is in the midst of an obesity crisis, coupled with heart disease and diabetes spiraling out of control. Personal, mortgage and government debts are at levels never seen before and day after day we all crawl about our daily lives stuck in time consuming and costly traffic congestion. Despite the ever closer threat of peak oil and energy vulnerability, our infrastructure leaders continue to plan and build more roads, more motorways and more tunnels in a pitiful attempt to build our way out of congestion. Ironically though there is not one single city in the world saying 'We want more cars driving around our city'. Our sedentary, stressful and economically unviable lifestyles and pathetic city building persuasions are slowly, but quietly, killing us.

In order to change this, I've developed a concept for city building and personal travel which could transform our cities, our lifestyles and our health.

My vision is a network of Cycling Super Highways:

  • 7.7 metre wide dedicated and separated cycle paths
  • Completely separated from parked and moving vehicles
  • Safe enough for everyone to use regardless of age, physical abilities or cycling skills

In 2007 I was part of the ConnectWest consortium (Comprising of AECOM, SKM and Philips Group). We were commissioned by the Queensland Government to develop a fully integrated multi-modal transport strategy for Western Brisbane. Whilst working on the WBTNI (Western Brisbane Transport Network Investigation), Enrique Penalosa, the former Mayor of Bogota visited Brisbane. It was Enrique's quote "A protected bicycle path is a symbol that a citizen on a $30 bicycle is as equally important as one in a $30,000 car" that inspired our ConnectWest team to develop a network of 11 metre wide 'Veloways" (high capacity cycle corridors).

I held conversations and focus groups with women, children and seniors in Brisbane (demographic groups who typically don't cycle) to find out why 'normal people' don't cycle. There were no great surprises in my findings: lack of safe and dedicated cycle infrastructure, traffic and personal safety fears, time pressures, personal physical ability, topography, humidity and rainfall all came to bear on people's decisions. The people who I spoke to said above all they wanted complete separation from parked and moving cars.

So I embarked on one Australian and two International study tours to understand the problem, and the possibilities. I visited 21 'Cycling Cities' around the world to discover first-hand what width and types of cycle infrastructure would change a standard city into a 'cycling city'. I found that the common features in these cities were that there was typically 4.0 – 5.0 metres of usable cycle space, and that bi-directional cycleways were separated from motorized traffic.

The X Factor

Whilst in Los Angeles, I read a quote from Gary Fischer on the L.A. Dept. of Transportation's website which said "For the city bike to catch on we need a revolution in our society's infrastructure.".

When Simon Cowell created the X Factor [A U.K. show similar to American Idol] he was looking for superstars; people who would sell millions, even billions, of records around the globe and who would be commercial phenomena. Simon wasn't looking for people to stand in a darkened corner of a local pub and sing on a Tuesday night, he was looking for a revolution.

Cycling Super Highways (CSH) are the X Factor of sustainable transport because 'average, normal, everyday people' will choose to ride bikes, not because they are cyclists but because CSH are:

  • Safe
  • Comfortable
  • Attractive
  • Direct
  • Connected

Cycle planners and engineers around the world repeatedly build skinny unprotected on–road cycle lanes, often less than 1.0 metre wide and then wonder why 'normal' people – women, children, seniors, commuters, families, tourists - don't cycle. In an attempt to get more people cycling more of the time, those same planners and engineers build more skinny unprotected on-road cycle lanes and not surprisingly people still don't cycle and so the vicious cycle continues.

Current cyclists and people who would consider riding want complete separation from parked and moving cars. Cycling Super Highways are the X Factor because they are the infrastructure that will get people out of their cars and cycling for their journey for work, for trips to the shops, for leisure trips, for family excursions, to keep fit and above all cycling because it really good fun.

Cycling Super Highways are:

  • Wide enough to cater for everyone – CSH allow two cyclists to cycle side by side because it's a really sociable mode of travel. CSH have enough space for a faster moving cyclist to overtake a slower moving cyclist. Existing on and off road cycle paths are just too narrow for cyclists to cycle side by side and also too narrow for people to overtake one another. You don't want to have to go out cycling as a family and then cycle along in a long crocodile line because the path is 1 metre wide – where's the fun in that?
  • Safe enough for everyone to use – CSH are safe enough for everyone to use regardless of their age, physical ability and cycling skills. CSH are safe enough for young children with stabilisers cycling to school to use, mothers on cargo bikes to cycle with their weekly shopping, for cycle couriers delivering parcels, , postmen and doctors doing their daily rounds and seniors cycling for fun to stay fit and healthy plus space enough for the pelotons of lycra wearing sports cyclists in training!
  • Protected enough to encourage everyone to cycle - Most people are too scared to cycle close to traffic or parked cars. We currently use on-road cycle lanes - and the brave and courageous cyclists who use them - to ‘protect' our parked cars from moving traffic! CSH are different because cyclists young and old are completely separated from parked and moving cars, SUVs, buses, trucks and petrol tankers.
  • Socially inclusive enough to support mobility aids – CSH are wide enough to allow mobility aids and powered wheelchairs to co-exist with bicycles helping to combat issues associated with an ageing population and our obesity crisis.

Above all, Cycling Super Highways are about capacity, about getting more people cycling more of the time, and everyone feeling empowered enough to consider cycling an equal mode of travel. CSH are not about speed and elite sports cyclists

I know we can't just go out tomorrow digging up roads and knocking down houses to build Cycling Super Highways. Likewise, we can't go on living in low-density suburbia dependent on the car for all of our journeys. We really have to think seriously about how we plan, build and sustain our towns and cities into the future. Utility, food and fuel costs are rising rapidly, families are struggling to pay their mortgages and the time, money and stress incurred traveling to and from work gets bigger every year. Cycling isn't going to solve these issues overnight but its free, healthy and whole lot less stressful!

Cycling Super Highway can help to address the issues surrounding rising population and supporting urban land intensification. The cycle highways would be surrounded by higher density mixed use commercial and residential Transit and Bicycle Oriented Developments with adaptable, affordable and climate responsive low-car or car-free housing, to make our towns and cities liveable, sustainable and great places to live, work and play.

Changing the way we view cycling

CSH are also about changing our view of cycling. Cycling, in Australia in particular, is not 'normal' because of our obsessions our obsession with lycra, our obsession with expensive 'all singing all dancing' carbon fibre racing bikes and our obsessions with cycling long distances at super fast speeds

If we really are going to get more people cycling more of the time we need to make it normal and maximize the enjoyment of cycling. Those of us who do cycle need to keep the lycra for the privacy of our own homes. We need to stop lecturing people about the health benefits. We're fat, we know we don't need reminding! We need to stop bullying people who ride comfortable dutch bikes or who have bikes with baskets. Baskets aren't for girls, they are cycle chic especially in Amsterdam!

We need to leave the 'safety gear' for sky diving cycling isn't dangerous, we have just created a sense of fear and we need to leave the high-vis jackets for high-vis activities like working at a supermarket. We, the people who already cycle, need to put our efforts into getting out there cycling with normal bikes, in our normal everyday clothes and having normal 'fun' because bikes help to make great streets and if we all work together we can use those great streets to create great cities to live, work and play in.


Rachel Smith has spent the last 12 years working in cycle planning and travel behaviour change in the private, public and community sectors in the UK and Australia. Rachel won the 2003 BP Road Safety Award for creating the '100 club' and quadrupling the number of children walking to school, has developed bicycle projects for international tourism destinations including the Eden Project (UK), planned cycle infrastructure for major infrastructure projects including the Gold Coast Rapid Transit and developed cycle strategies for the UK, Queensland and ACT Governments.

Comments

Comments

What about intersections

This article unfortunately ignores the most difficult part of cycling instrastructure: intersections. Bike lanes themselves, whether narrow, wide or extra-wide are the easy part. But the question always remains: how do you handle all of the conflicting movements at intersections? There are bike-car, bike-bike, bike-pedestrian, car-pedestrian and car-car conflicts for straight, left-turn and right-turn movements, and they cannot be ignored. Intersections are the biggest problem for ease-of-use, comfort and safety.

The problems are not insurmountable, but any discussion of bike lanes is woefully incomplete without something about intersections. Showing photos and diagrams and letting everyone know why these cities have handled intersections will do more to promote cycling infrastructure than anything about the lanes themselves.

These recommendations are wrong

A day later, it appears that my comment was lost, so here it is again and expanded...

There were over 15,000 crashes in NYC involving pedestrians and autos in 2007. That may seem like a random fact, but pedestrians operate on facilities separated from cars, so there has to be more to the answer than creating a similar set of segregated facilities for bicycles if we really want to get folks out and cycling safely.

The League of American Bicyclists recommends a five pronged approach to development of cycling infrastructure with your engineering recommendations being but one of the recommendations. Just as important, and actually a little more important as far as I am concerned, are Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation.

Since the lag time in implementing programs based on these factors is much shorter and uniformly much cheaper than engineering and constructing segregated pathways, why is it that most proponents get hung-up on engineering? Teach motorists and cyclists and pedestrians what to expect from each other and show them how to operate safely. Train law enforcement, courts and motorists and include bicycle and pedestrian questions in license tests and law enforcement academy graduation materials.

But, most of the proponents I meet tend to ignore these cheaper and potentially quicker solutions in favor of sleek new facilities. What drives this focus? That is the question that I keep coming back to.

I see a mindset here that delays gratification “UNTIL” some future event and is the same sort of utopian perspective that foresaw a future of ease and plenty that was only possible in a new town based upon an integrated freeway system. Visionaries set to ripping apart cities to fulfill the dream or starting from scratch on a freeway segment in the middle of nowhere. Remember Brasilia and the complete lack of pedestrian facilities in the early stages of that development, or the vision for NYC that was fully formed in Robert Moses head? So pardon me if I feel the need to move beyond this “UNTIL” mindset and see what we can do in the here and now to encourage active transportation on the facilities in which we have already invested billions.

I also want to move beyond the underlying assumption that cars and bikes and peds cannot coexist safely in the community. Let’s save the time and expense of proving what we already know, mixed-use trails and paths have their own set of safety issues and relying on that cross-section alone brings a new set of problems and a robust set of crashes. The real issue in all of this is not the overtaking crashes you are trying to solve, but the crossing conflicts that are inherent in all of these models (unless you are going to limit bikes to riversides, lakefronts and rail corridors. We can share sources of detail here if you like—too many to list, but start with LAB.

My other concern is the throwaway bit at the end about cycling not being dangerous and the author’s instruction to leave the high visibility clothing for guys at the supermarket. I ride a utility bike with a rack, but I wear a helmet and high vis; why wouldn’t I? I have personally observed three faceplants in the last two years that medical first responders said would have been permanently disabling or fatal to the rider in each case had he or she not been wearing a helmet. None of these folks were racing and all were operating at well under 20 MPH.
As for High Visibility, it just makes sense to be seen whenever you are operating around much larger and faster vehicles.

I know, I know, segregated facilities are the answer here. Try telling that to the over 15,000 pedestrians whose trips on segregated facilities delivered them to the scene of their crash. Link: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2007PedestrianSummary.pdf

D.Bud Laumer MUP, AICP, LCI

Book cover of the Guide to Graduate Planning Programs 4th Edition

Thinking about Grad School?

New! 4th Edition of the Planetizen Guide to Graduate Urban Planning Programs just released.
Starting at $24.95

Prepare for the AICP Exam

Join the thousands of students who have utilized the Planetizen AICP* Exam Preparation Class to prepare for the American Planning Association's AICP* exam.
Starting at $209
T-shirt with map of Chicago

Show your city pride

Men's Ultrasoft CityFabric© tees. Six cities available.
$23.00

Stay thirsty, urbanists

These sturdy water bottles are eco-friendly and perfect for urbanists on the go.
$19.00