Selecting cycle measures

There is a range of common cycle infrastructure measures that can be implemented across a city's cycle network, which include the following:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6203{Cycle Lanes as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6202{Cycle Tracks as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6172{Cycle Highways as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6226{Grade Separated Crossings as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6208{Intersections as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6241{Contra-flow cycling as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6206{Mixed-use Zones as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6209{Cycle Streets as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6205{Multimodal Integration as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6227{1.10 Recreational Cycle Routes as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6219{Cycle Parking as Link}
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/node/6212{Signage and Wayfinding as Link}

An important element of the cycle network development process is the selection of appropriate cycle measures that address gaps or challenges faced by your city. There is no single answer to which design solutions or measures should be implemented, but there are a number of key factors that cities should take into consideration in the decision-making process:

What is the route’s function?

Main route, top cycling route or local route

What is the spatial environment?

Inside or outside the urban/built-up area

What is the traffic situation?

Intensity and speed of motorised traffic
Road function – connector road, distributor road, access road
Physical characteristics – available width, number of lanes etc

Route function

Route function (main routes, top local routes and local routes) plays an important part in determining design requirements. The EC PRESTO project identified design standards for the different route functions, which are shown in the table below.

However, the local context of a city should always be considered. For example, in smaller cities, connecting centres between 5 km and 15 km for utility purposes may be too far (3 to 10 km may be more appropriate). Also, ensuring a minimum of 3m width for cycle lanes and track in built-up urban areas is unlikely to be possible in many cases where cycling facilities do not already exist.

Main route	High level direct long-distance cycle routes (often cycle ‘highways’) Range of route functions: Utility use – connecting centres over 5 to 15 km; or Recreational use – long distance routes between city centres (10 to 50 km) High quality design standards: Maximum separation from pedestrians and motorised traffic Car free routes, or routes prioritising bicycles Minimum number of crossings: Crossings with busy roads: preferable grade-separated using a tunnel or a bridge Crossings with quiet roads: priority for the bicycles Material: asphalt or concrete Minimum 3 meters width Uni- or bidirectional cycle flow, depending on local conditions Shallow gradients Outside urban areas these routes often make use of towpaths along canals, disused railway tracks or cycle tracks parallel to roads or railways Inside urban areas these main routes have a high volume of bicycle traffic due to a high density of attraction poles (schools, dense living areas, office districts, etc.) The main routes are integrated into the overall cycle network and do not make up a coherent network on their own.
Top local route	The most logical (quick) connection between (sub)centres and districts − Mostly along busy roads In most cases, they need separated cycle lanes due to intensity and speed of motorised traffic If possible, there should be conflict free crossings with busy roads If separation of bikes and other traffic is not possible, attention should be given to conflict prevention and speed reduction The top local routes form a coherent cycle network on the regional or urban level
Local routes	Routes to provide access to destinations within districts and neighbourhoods Refining the top local cycle network (reducing the detour factor) Mostly found in traffic calming zones where mixing of car traffic and bicycles is often safe and convenient Emphasis on creating direct routes on local level: shortcuts, contra-flow cycling, cycling through pedestrianised areas, etc. Local routes can provide access to top local routes (and potentially main routes), reducing barriers to use/access.

Spatial environment and traffic situation

Many guiding principles have been developed relating to the selection of cycle measures and the spatial environment and traffic situation. Those presented here are from the EC PRESTO project, adapted from CROW Record 85 – Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic.

Differences in speed between bicycles and motorised traffic outside the urban area mean that there is a high risk of conflict and serious injury. Therefore, strict separation of bicycles and motorised traffic should be considered. The decision matrix for selecting cycle infrastructure outside the urban area is as follows:

Credit: PRESTO project

Within the urban area, it is difficult to always separate bicycles and motorised traffic. Therefore, mixing is the default option, with separation implemented where necessary, for example, when there is high traffic speeds or volumes. Road and cycling infrastructure should be designed to visually alert all road users to potential upcoming conflict situations between different types of transport modes. The decision matrix for selecting cycle infrastructure inside the urban area is as follows:

Credit: PRESTO project

Files

[collapsed title=Key guidance, further reading and references]

PRESTO (2010) PRESTO - Cycling Policy Guide Infrastructure (see Section 2.4.3)

20 JULY 2021

presto_policy_guide_cycling_infrastructure

English

(2.46 MB - PDF)