Four types of potential bicycle riders

I think most of us have come across the research undertaken by Roger Geller on the four types of transportation cyclists in Portland, Oregon. I have seen it referenced in multiple reports, but have also heard many questions about its applicability across geographies.

Recently I came across some research undertaken under the Transportation Research Board in the USA that aimed to expand the model to assess other cities in the USA. You can purchase the research report by Jennifer Dill on the TRB site here. I found this very useful slide presentation from 2015 on the LinkedIn Slideshare that summarises the outcomes of the research report.

Four Types of Cyclists: A National Look from TREC at PSU

Now  we just need some similar research in Australian cities. I am quite certain that the Australian population will have a similar profile of potential bicycle riders, but local research is always more pwerful to reference.

Raised priority crossings

Priority crossings of side streets are essential for off-road cycle tracks along arterial roads. Without the priority for cyclists the traffic on the minor side streets impact significantly on the safety and delay for cyclists using the cycle track. More confident cyclists will tend to ride on road and avoid using the cycle track, and all other cyclists risk their safety every time they have to cross the side streets.

The Cycle Track guideline (Technical Note TN128) issued by the Department of Transport and Main Roads gives good guidance on priority crossings for cycle tracks. Here are some examples I have seen delivered around the state.

 Brisbane Road on the Sunshine Coast

Entrance to theme parks and studios off Entertainment Drive, Gold Coast (photo from Google StreetView) - not the raised crossing on the slip lane.

Brassal Bikeway in Ipswich.

Brisbane has multiple locations where priority crossings are required on V1 Veloway. My pet hates are:

• along O'Keefe Street with the crossing of Carl Street (Council did a half hearted upgrade in 2016 that did not address the issue at all)
• along Bapaume Road and Birdwood Road

Stage E of the Veloway upgrade will hopefully provide a priority route for cyclists through this dangerous section of the V1. But unfortunately it may not address the issue for school kids cycling to Holland Park High which is just off the V1 along Bapaume Road. This is a personal issue for me as my daughter has just started high school there and our house is ideally located for her to use the V1 to cycle to school. However the multiple crossings of slip lanes, side roads and driveways make me very nervous for her safety.

Hopefully the upgrade to the V1 will also consider the needs of school kids needing to access Holland Park High. The upgrade does not appear to be funded yet so I dont know if it will get upgraded soon enough for my kids to use it to get to school. An interim intervention to improve this section would definately be welcome for commuters and school children using this dangerouse section of the V1. I have some ideas for improvements, if anyone would be interested.

Personal safety

A while back I visited a friend who teaches underprivileged children in Phnom-Pehn, Cambodia. If you have visited Cambodia you will know the chaos on the roads. Pedestrians, vendor carts, bicycles, motorbikes galore and motor cars, buses and trucks compete for space in a seemingly lawless free-for-all on the road and footpath.

When our friend first moved to Cambodia several years ago she got around by bicycle because she could not afford a car. I asked her about how safe she felt cycling in the chaos. Interestingly she didn't talk about road safety, she spoke of her fears for her personal safety when cycling at night.

As soon as she could scrape together enough money she got herself a car so that she could feel safe leaving home after dark.  Having a car made life far more expensive and difficult. Finding parking on the street she lived in was impossible and caused huge conflict with her neighbours. Traffic jams are a continual frustration and her commute by car often takes longer and is less reliable than cycling was. The cost of running a car is more than she can really afford. But the peace of mind afforded to her of being cocooned in her little car, protected from predators made the pain and frustration of driving a car worthwhile. 

This got me thinking about how perceptions of personal safety/security can influence ones choice of mode. Here in Brisbane the threat of muggers, rapists and human traffickers is comparatively zero, yet for a large portion of the population (as much as 50%?) it can have a major influence on their choice of mode or route. 

A few years back Gayle (my wife) was working a late shift at a business in the Valley. Because of the issues of finding parking she decided to try cycling to work. Although the cycle network into the Valley is not great she found the afternoon cycle into work quite pleasant. However at around 10pm I got a rather concerned phone call from Gayle. She had successfully cycled out of the city on the bikeway but now found herself just south of Buranda where the bikeway goes along the creek corridor. This was before lights were installed on this section and she did not feel safe cycling through deserted parklands. She felt far safer cycling on road the rest of the way because the perceived threat to her personal safety of cycling through a dark and deserted park was greater than the road safety risk of sharing a road with no cycle lanes. 

A friend cycles to work at the PA hospital. Despite having access to a bikeway just down the road she cycles the first section on road because she does not feel safe riding through Tooheys forest on her own at any time of the day. 

Because of this it is always important to remember to consider personal safety/security when planning and designing cycle networks. The CPTED guidelines are useful as a tool for informing route option assessment and design. However it can also sometimes be a hindrance to delivering some excellent network outcomes due to concerns about sending cyclists down hidden corridors behind noise barriers and back fences of properties, or through woodland areas. Even with lighting these places can seem very threatening at night, particularly in certain areas or on parts of the network where there are few users. 

I think however that CPTED issues should rarely be a reason not to deliver an off-road cycle link that has clear network benefit. A route identified through a CPTED assessment as having a risk to personal security should have appropriate design treatments to reduce the perceived and actual risk. And if possible it would also be good to provide a on-road alternative to allow for greater route choice. That way cyclists can make a choice of route based on the perceived risk. By having an integrated network of on-road and off-road cycle routes we can serve a larger cross section of user needs, and hence make cycling a more attractive proposition for a greater proportion of the population. 

Desire lines

No, not the lines of people trying to pay for their shopping. Desire lines are lines drawn on a map that represent where people desire to go. When planning and designing infrastructure for active transport (especially pedestrians), desire lines are an essential indicator of how people will want to use the facility. This is because it may take extra effort to deviate off the route that gives you the shortest path to your destination. The less mechanical assistance you have, the more important the shortest path is to route choice.

It is important to realise that the shortest path is not necessarily the route that has the shortest distance. It tends to be the route that appears to be the most direct path to the destination from a point of decision. For the pedestrian this is usually the route that follows the 'line of sight' - a path that most closely matches a straight line route from where you stand to where you want to go.

When planning and designing active infrastructure you ignore desire lines at your peril. Here are two examples. 

The first is an old one that I see every day I ride to work. It is the link across Little Dock Street between the Kangaroo Point Bikeway and Vulture Street. This link is restricted as I bicycle-only connection. The planning intent was that pedestrians wanting to access Vulture Street would cross Little Dock Street at the Goodwill Bridge and use the bougainvillea pathway. Cyclists would use the Kangaroo Point Bikeway and exclusively use the link across Little Dock Street. sort of like the illustration below. The Kangaroo Point Bikeway and the pathway alongside it were designed with fences, kerbs and signs to ensure people stick to this arrangement.

All very nice and neat. However, this arrangement neglects to recognise that when walking people make their routing choices based primarily on desire lines in order to expend the least effort in reaching their destination. The infrastructure and regulation are only considered where they physically prevent a movement, or when the 'self-preservation' instinct overrides the 'least-effort' instinct.

The desire-lines for pedestrians between the Goodwill Bridge and Vulture Street can be shown as below. In addition to this major desire line there is also a minor pedestrian desire line between Vulture Street and the pathway going east along Little Dock Street.

The resulting pedestrian movements result in significant conflict between pedestrians and cyclists along a very narrow section of separated pathway (only 2m wide cycleway).

For the most part pedestrians recognise that they are crossing the bikeway and they are careful to not get in the way. They check before they cross and keep their eye out to avoid conflict, as can be seen in the picture below. Note the pedestrian in the background is also keeping an eye out to avoid conflicts on the narrow path.

In fact it is such a well-worn route that you can see the path through the vegetation that pedestrians take to avoid being in the way of cyclists.

But often this does not happen and conflict erupts. I almost witnessed a fist fight recently where a rather muscular pedestrian who had been walking in the middle of the bikeway shoved a cyclist when he tried to get past after ringing his bell. Usually this sort of conflict just results in some rude words being exchanged as the cyclist and pedestrian exchange their feelings of mutual dislike for each other. That time (and I am sure there have been many others) it could have ended tragically.

The solution to this is relatively simple, but will cost some money. What is needed is to provide sufficient space for both pedestrians and cyclists to make the link between the Kangaroo Point Bikeway and Vulture Street. More fences and signs will not solve the problem, it will just make it more frustrating for all users.

The next example is a more recent one - the landing of the Kurilpa Bridge on Tank Street. When designing this landing the engineers had great difficulty fitting in all the pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle movements. The complicating factor was the driveway off Tank Street for access to a parking garage. This wide driveway was adjacent to where the bridge landed and spills its load of pedestrians and cyclists. The designers came to the conclusion that the driveway entry and exit meant it was not possible to provide sufficient space to store pedestrians wanting to cross Tank Street. The large number of vehicles using Tank Street to access parking garages would have been too severely delayed by creating a shared zone for pedestrians and vehicles.

So the solution delivered was to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing Tank Street where the bridge landed. A wall was constructed to prevent this movement and gardens planted to make it clear that pedestrians should not cross here. Fortunately as a compromise a speed hump was included on Tank Street to slow drivers down as they approached the parking lot driveway.

Unfortunately the pesky pedestrians had not studied engineering and they refused to comply.

 They just didn't seem to realise that this was not an approved maneuver.

 Within no time they had worn a path through the landscaping that was intended to prevent them from crossing.

Unfortunately the designers ignored the very obvious desire lines. The approved place to cross Tank Street was determined to be at North Quay and George Street (as below). That would ensure that any conflicts that would occur could be controlled.

What this design ignored was the very strong pedestrian desire lines between the coffee shops (and parking garage) on the north of Tank Street, and the offices and bridge on the south. It also ignored the fact that the proposed path between North Quay and the Kurilpa Bridge or south Tank Street was not at all obvious and was not on the pedestrian (and cyclist) desire line.

 So of course this resulted in pedestrians (and some cyclists) making 'unsafe' maneuvers.

 Thankfully a solution was retrofitted that better provides for pedestrian and cyclist desire lines.

It is unfortunate that desire lines were ignored in the initial design, as I am sure that a more elegant solution could have been found to this problem.

Off-road cycle paths along roads

Separated cycleways are becoming increasingly popular worldwide. I have posted previously about the latest guidelines from TMR for separated cycleways.

But the concept of separating cyclists from cars in the road corridor is not new. Previously the standard was to provide wider footpaths that allowed sharing of the facility by pedestrians and cyclists. I recently saw an example of one of these on Cotlew Street on the Gold Coast.

 This included separation between cyclists and pedestrians.

 Unfortunately the pathway is only a total width of around 2.5m. So with separation it provides a footpath and a cycle path that are both too narrow. If the cycle path was only on one direction that would be better, but there was no corresponding facility on the other side of the road. one-way pathways are also unlikely to work as cyclists are unlikely to cross the road to access the pathway on the other side.

The pathway also crosses several side streets with no priority given to cyclists over the traffic on the side roads. This solution is inconvenient and slow for cyclists and not very safe.

To make matters worse, the facility was not part of a continuous off-road cycle route.

Can it be retrofitted to be a viable separated cycleway? If it was part of a broader network of off-road cycle paths, it may be worthwhile to investing in:

• removing the separation between pedestrians and cyclists to provide a 3m wide shared path
• providing priority to the pathway across the side streets.

I am sure a lot of our older suburban cycle paths along modern arterial road corridors could benefit from a similar investment to reduce delay to cyclists and improve safety by increasing their priority through intersecting streets.

Turning pockets

Over Christmas I was in Sydney. I was interested to see these separated cycleways on the corner of Kent Street and King Street. I have posted about the Sydney separated cycleways before, but had somehow missed seeing these turn pockets. 

It is the first I have seen on separated cycleways. I assume this must have high turning volumes as the King Street cycleway connects to the bridge over Darling Harbour. Unfortunately on New Year's day there was not much cycle traffic.

The operation of the cycleway is unfortunately constrained by the conflict with right turning traffic that needs to cross the cycleway. The cyclists therefore have a red signal until they activate the induction loops or pressure sensors in the pavements at the stop line.

Quite clearly this arrangement increases delay to cyclists. In the little time I stood there I observed a couple of cyclists ignoring the red bicycle signal and just going through with the general traffic.

LATER EDITS

In 2012 Bitzios Consulting undertook an assessment of thes signals amongst others. The phasing of the signals is interesting. There are two phases controlling movement on Kent Street:

• cars going straight and turning right get a green signal as well as pedestrians (10 seconds red for beginning of Ped movements).
• bicycles on Kent Street get a green signal while cars and pedestrians are stopped.

The cyclists signal phase apparently operates as part of the cycle during weekdays - getting 11% of the time (12 seconds). It only operates if called on evenings and weekends.
So cyclists are always stopped while cars run.  I would think that cyclists would have less delay and be better served if the signal phases were:

• cars going straight get a green signal as well as pedestrians and cyclists.
• cars going straight and turning right get a green signal - cyclists and peds stop.

I don't know what the vehicle right turning volumes are, but I assume they are high - and hence the signal phasing. The Bitzios report recommended a  review of the allocated time to cyclist movements as cyclists often ignored the red signal when traffic volumes were low. I would be interested to find out whether alternative phasing as I suggest has been considered - especially when traffic volumes are low. Having the vehicle right turn as an actuated signal phase could significantly reduce the delay to cyclists.

Brassall Bikeway

It is always great to find some great bits of innovation when I get out on my bike to explore. Ipswich has some great examples of cycle priority through road intersections. You can find them on the Brassall Bikeway on Workshop Street an Haig Street.

I was really impressed with this cycle route along an old railway corridor. It was well designed and included great interest items for recreational cycling. Wayfinding along the bikeway is good, but it completely evaporated when I needed it most - when I got to the end of the route at North Street. 

I had actually stopped off in Ipswich River Heart Parklands to allow the kids to play in the impressive water park next to the Bremer River in Bob Gamble Park. 

The lovely pathway along the waters edge motivated the family to get on our bikes to explore. 

Although the path was great, it was disappointing that cycling was not allowed along sections. Cyclists either had to use the footpath or on-road cycle lanes. Not fantastic for young, inexperienced cyclists. Another disappointment was how it didn't connect to anything. As a family we have been spoiled by being able to ride for ever up and down the Brisbane River. Unfortunately the same is not 

possible on the Bremer River, as we discovered.

I cycled on the Brassall Bikeway in an attempt to access what looked like a brand-new bikeway past the River Link Shopping Center (see the picture above). This was the biggest disappointment of the day. What looked like a fantastic bikeway along the river ended up being nothing of the sort. It was a beautiful wide pathway that I struggled to find an access onto, and ended as a dead end under the David Trumpy Bridge. It started nowhere, and ended nowhere. I understand this will in the future form part of a riverside cycle link that will link to the Brassall Bikeway and North Ipswich Park. For now however it is an expensive piece of infrastructure that serves no purpose at all. Hopefully it will not stay that way for long.

What I have found surprising is that despite the fantastic Brassall Bikeway and the improvements for cycling along the Ipswich Motorway corridor, the Ipswich City Council web site appears to have no information on commuter cycling route in the city. The only maps of cycle routes I could find on their web site were these recreational cycle routes.

Separated Cycleways

Separated Cycleways are very effective in providing a riding environment in the road corridor where most people feel comfortable to cycle in. They have often been called 'Copenhagen Bike Lines' as they are relatively popular in that city. They are gaining popularity worldwide and also in Australia.

Here is Brisbane's first separated cycleway along George Street.

I have previously written about them in Sydney, Victoria, Copenhagen and New York.

Here is a less than successful treatment for cyclists in New York.

Up till now there has been very little local guidance on appropriate design treatments. That has now changed here in Queensland. The Department of Transport and Main Roads (QLD) have published their Separated Cycleways guideline on their Traffic and Road Use Management (TRUM) web page. Here are some words on it from Jonathan Giles' publicity email:


The Department of Transport and Main Roads aims to provide a direct, safe and comfortable cycle network for people of all ages and abilities to achieve a doubling of bicycle trips for transport.
The Separated Cycleways Guideline presents design guidance supporting the Austroads guides with supplementary advice for bicycle infrastructure including intersections where bicycles are physically separated from vehicles. Facilities like these have been shown to improve safety and increase the ridership of a wide cross section of the community.
This guideline is intended to assist designers, engineers and planners with options on appropriate bicycle facility type for principal cycle network or local routes. Construction and whole of life maintenance considerations are also included. It is acknowledged that in many situations optimal solutions may not be practicable.

The Separated Cycleways Guideline has been prepared to support TMR’s Cycling Infrastructure Policy and Queensland Cycle Strategy 2011-2021 and to provide additional guidance to local and state government and industry. The new guideline is an 'approved notice' of the TORUM Act. It is listed under interim notes until the next formal amendment.
Join us for our 2 May 2014 seminar and webinar to hear more about the guideline and provide feed back.  PedBikeTrans in conjunction with Bicycle Queensland will be hosting the seminar (and webinar) introducing the new guidance and discussing the new intersection design guidance in detail. Please RSVP at: http://2may2014pbt.eventbrite.com