Cycle network and route planning guide - NZ Transport Agency

are accessed by car from a fast
circumferential ring road. Motor vehicles
can only travel between zones via the ring
road. Within neighbourhoods, cyclists and
motorists share the use of slow-speed (30
km/h) streets. Neighbourhoods are joined
by a spine of cycle and walking paths that
provide much shorter routes than for motor
traffic. As a result, 44 percent of trips less
than 7.5 km long are made by bicycle and
23 percent by walking. Traffic crash risk is
half that of comparable towns.
Cycle path with right of way at intersection, Houten,
The Netherlands. (Photo: Tim Hughes)
Other examples of full segregation have not
been so successful. Milton Keynes (United
Kingdom) suffered from sub-standard path
design that has a poor safety record, and
has failed to achieve higher modal share by
cycling (Franklin, 1999). Canberra’s system also
failed to live up to the expected benefits
with only three percent of trips to work
made by bicycle. This is largely due to a
high quality of provision for cars and a lack
of directness and coherence in the cycle
path network for utility cycling. Canberra is
now retrofitting a primary cycle network to
the arterial roads.
Cycle shelter near bus stop and underpass under ring
road, Houten, The Netherlands. (Photo: Tim Hughes)
5.3.2 Road-based networks
Land use in already-existing towns makes
it impractical to develop an off-road path
network, so cycle networks are based
around the established network of (mostly
arterial) roads. There remains the issue of
whether to provide a physically separated
path beside the roadway.
Places such as Sweden, and Copenhagen
in Denmark, have made an expensive
commitment to redesigning arterial roads
to provide cycle paths on berms behind
relocated kerbs. More recently, and where
there has not been enough funding to build
cycle paths, some European towns have
tried cycle lanes as an interim measure and
found them successful.
5.3.3 General considerations
Many factors influence whether roads
or paths will best suit cyclists’ needs.
For example:
• increased segregation from motor
traffic is usually accompanied by
increased interference from pedestrians,
pets, skateboarders, slower cyclists etc
• one choice is not inherently safer than
another; both can be hazardous and
both require high-quality design to
achieve safety — ‘the devil is in the
detail’. Paths tend to be safer between
intersections as long as there is room
for adequate design and minimal
crossing-driveway traffic
• cycling through a junction on the
roadway is generally safer than from
a path. Junctions between paths and
busier roads generally require traffic
calming or signals
• at junctions between paths and roads,
New Zealand law requires cyclists on
the path to give way, which reduces
cyclist LOS
• geometric design standards for roads
are often higher than for paths
• it is incorrect to suggest that roads can
only satisfy commuters’ needs, or that
paths cannot satisfy commuter cyclists’
needs. Most leisure cycling takes place
on roads, and many commuters enjoy
well located paths
• a road is not necessarily less
expensive to maintain but will often
benefit through existing pavement
management systems
• it is usually easier and less expensive
to accommodate the needs of
commuter cyclists on roads than
on separate paths
• the freedom from traffic danger and
fumes brings obvious benefits for
recreation cycling and novices
(Dorrestyn, 1996a).
• it is difficult to provide a coherent
and direct path system that is as
convenient for commuters as the
arterial road network
• where origins and destinations are
on the same side of an arterial road,
a two-way cycle path means cyclists
don’t have to cross the road twice to get
there. However, such two-way paths are
generally not recommended.
5.3.4 Relative advantages
Subject to appropriate design standards
being achieved, roads generally have the
following advantages over paths.
They are:
• direct
• coherent
• convenient
• efficient
• available everywhere
and also:
• have established intersection controls
• serve well the needs of experienced
cyclists
• have high levels of surveillance and
therefore personal security.
Between intersections, isolated paths
generally have the following advantages
over roads. They have:
• no motor traffic
• slower speeds
• low stress
• an attractive environment
and also:
• provide extra links that advantage
all cyclists
• serve well the needs of
novice/child cyclists.
Depending on the circumstances and
design detail, there is usually no clear
advantage between roads and paths in
relation to:
• safety
• conflict with other users
• expense
• maintenance.
31