The UK is another low cycling country, like Australia. In 2020, it was jolted out of its slumber with COVID-19. Cycling is now being championed and sponsored at a national level – with the highest top down sponsorship possible. After many decades of slow change things are now agile. The change is illustrated by the way the current UK Government thinks and talks about cycling. When there is decisive change sponsorship, things can happen quickly.
2.1 The UK approach to network design
Planning road networks in the ACT
One would think that the best practice for planning road networks in the ACT would also apply for planning a bike network. This is not the case. The Canberra cycling network, known as CBR Cycle Routes, is not the result of computer modelling, ABS Census data, population growth estimates, or traffic monitoring. The CBR Cycle Routes are mostly rebranding existing paths. The ACT has no regular path monitoring, cleaning or maintenance programs. The maintenance of the bike network is not itemised in previous ACT Budget documents. Repairs are ad hoc.
We have been optimising the process for road network planning for decades with traffic modelling. In 2004 Canberra finished the last spatial plan. Population predictions until 2058 followed. New districts such as the Molonglo Valley were planned and with it an arterial road network to carry traffic. Roads have scheduled maintenance programs. Road duplications are common. Consulting companies are hired to find ways to make our road network better.
Our love of roads contrasts with our neglect of the cycling infrastructure. Simple maintenance of bike paths have been delayed for years. After a decade of complaints, the Principal Community Route from Belconnen to Civic (CBR Cycle Route C5) was finally resurfaced. In contrast, we see Coulter Drive, Southern Cross Drive, and Belconnen Way resurfaced almost every year.
Getting it right
Abrupt reductions in the quality of provision for cyclists – such as a busy high-speed roundabout without facilities – will mean that an otherwise serviceable route becomes unusable by most potential users.
Main roads are often the only direct, coherent route available to move between places, but these are usually the roads where people most fear the danger from motor vehicles.
Connections between successive sections should be obvious. Similarly, a route through a complex junction should be highly visible and clear to all road users.
Directness is measured in both distance and time. Routes used for commuting therefore should provide the shortest and fastest way of travelling from place to place.
To make cycling an attractive alternative to driving short distances, cycle routes should be at least as direct – and preferably more direct – than those available for private motor vehicles.
Not only must cycle infrastructure be safe, it should also be perceived to be safe so that more people feel able to cycle.
Safety and environmental improvements for all road users can be achieved by reducing motor traffic volumes and speeds.
Safety will need to be achieved by providing dedicated and protected space for cycling, which may involve reallocating existing space within the highway (or providing a parallel route).
The potential for conflict between pedestrians and cyclists should be minimised by keeping them separate except in low speed, low traffic environments.
A feeling of safety can be achieved by providing lighting and by passive surveillance from overlooking buildings and other users.
Maintenance to address surface defects, overgrown vegetation, fallen leaves, snow and ice will all help to reduce the likelihood of falls and crashes for all people, and preserve available width and sight lines for cyclists.
Comfortable conditions for cycling require routes with good quality, well-maintained smooth surfaces, adequate width for the volume of users, minimal stopping and starting.
Adequate width is important for comfort. Cycling is a sociable activity and many people will want to cycle side by side, and to overtake another cyclist safely.
Families are more likely to use off-carriageway facilities. Young children may need additional space to wobble.
Cycling is a pleasurable activity, in part because it involves such close contact with the surroundings, but this also intensifies concerns about personal security and traffic danger.
The importance of direct
Cars have higher speeds and that allows them to travel great distances. The fastest route is often not very direct. For bikes, it is the opposite. They do not go fast or far so the best route is always the straight-line path to the destination. Because our ACT roads are built first, they have received the prime real estate and are mostly shorter and with lower gradients than the existing bike routes. Maintenance of the roads is also better. For these reasons, cyclists embrace roads. A comparison of road distance between Belconnen and Civic is just 8.3km, but a distance of 11.4km if you take the safer shared path.
Designing a bike network for Canberra will be drawing straight lines between town centres, trying to build bike paths as close as possible to those lines. Building bridges is the best way to cross obstacles as it allows the cyclist to safely maintain moment, which is especially important when commuting to work.
There may be hills in the way. Topography has confronted road builders for aeons. With bike paths, it is no different. Climbing restricts the range of a cyclist. Hills in Canberra create choke points over the lowest point on the ridge (a pass).
Because direct is so important, the few corridors that are suitable for a bike path MUST be reserved, preserved and defended from the conflicting priorities of consecutive governments. It will take time to build the network. Put an apartment block on the green patch and the direct path can no longer be completed.
Pencil and paper not required
We have long moved past the pencil and paper era. Computer modelling allows for many considerations: population density, population growth, age distribution, topography, existing roads and bridges, locations of schools and town centres, public transport stops, and a lot more. Computer models are used as planning tools.
The idea is not new. In 2014 the UK Government funded the development of the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) for planning as part of its national cycling initiative that included goals for participation and gender equality. By 2018 they had the first results, and in 2020 the tool was online for use by local governments. The tool makes recommendations for routes to access schools and corridors for commuting that would be used the most. These become the priorities for network design and later path construction.
This tool is open-source and anybody can use it – but there is a hitch. It is only as good as the data you feed into it, and the data is only for the UK. For this tool to be used in the ACT, it must be fed with ACT data and hosted on a server. This will take money, time, and knowhow, none of which is currently provided. The government needs to jump in.
Planned – but not defended – is lost
Even with perfect network design, should there be such a thing, there is no guarantee that it will ever be built. The nature of urban planning is that it takes decades, is expensive, fraught with compromise, and hostage to political will. In other words, a bike-friendly government could be followed four years later by an unfriendly one and the momentum is lost.
The corridors required for the bike network need to be secured through a statutory instrument: the Territory Plan.
The Territory Plan is high level. The Concept Plan for a suburb is driven by other factors. The Estate Development Code is important as it describes in detail what our urban environment should look like. The Active Travel Framework was released in 2015, the Active Travel Guidelines and the Municipal Infrastructure Standard 05 for Active Travel (MIS05) in 2019. These initiatives will not be successful unless they are fully integrated in the Estate Development Code.
The Estate Development Code is statutory, but the Active Travel Framework and Municipal Infrastructure Standard 05 for Active Travel are guidelines. As we know from Geoffrey Rush, guidelines are not rules and may not be followed. For the development of a new suburb, under the pressures of time, cost and competing interests, guidelines are likely to be ignored. The development of the Molonglo Valley has demonstrated this.
Planning the ACT bike network
An effort has been made to design the ACT bike network. The construction has failed due to a lack of funding. Pedal Power ACT has made sensible and largely consistent suggestions for the annual ACT Budget. Unfortunately, the suggestions have been largely ignored, and funding has been inadequate. For every two steps forward, there is one step backwards.
The Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool released in 2017 provided a moment of hope. Finally, it was possible to reserve the bike path corridors for later development. Unfortunately, the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool is not a statutory document and it was ignored. The content of the Active Travel Infrastructure Practitioner Tool is now out of date (there has been no update in the last two years). Further work is required.
The problems got worse when the ACT Government dropped the ball with the light rail. From the perspective of active travel, public transport is a good thing. It is generally accepted that the bike network should integrate with the public transport network, which includes the light rail. The ACT Government, however, did not build a safe bike path along the length of the light rail to Gungahlin despite the opportunity provided during the road reconstruction. They also succeeded in demolishing the bike path along Flemington Road and then forgot to rebuild it. Only after community protest was that path finally reestablished.
Pedal Power Act’s strategy is now that a bike path should run alongside the light rail and be part of the works. Feeders from the suburbs would join with the network so that cycling the last mile can be combined with public transport over a greater distance. Imagine you could ride from Franklin, Gungahlin, to the next light rail stop, load your bike there and get off in Tuggeranong to continue riding to Banks. In this way, the ride would be shortened by 40 km.
The leadership void
The idea of Jurassic Park died when somebody pointed out that DNA is not enough. You do not get a baby without a baby-making machine. The womb makes it all possible. The same applies to a bike network. The network design is the DNA, but a cycle network has a gestation (construction) period of 10 to 20 years. We can learn from the Netherlands that without leadership, prepared – if necessary – to fight successive elections on the cycling agenda, Canberra will not turn into an admired bike city.
In those places where a shift to cycling for active travel has succeeded, political leadership was instrumental for its success. The Mayor of Paris rides to work. The English PM can be still found on his bike. A newly elected, former bike shop owner (see below) is changing Ireland. Until we see the Chief Minister on a bicycle, not a lot will happen.
Republic of Ireland
After talking recently about the investment in cycle networks in Paris, it was good news to find the Republic of Ireland has followed.
“A former bike shop owner has secured a substantial financial settlement for active travel in the Republic of Ireland. For the next five years, cycling and walking schemes—including protected cycling networks and expanded sidewalks—will receive €360 million annually.
The settlement was secured by Eamon Ryan, leader of Ireland’s Green Party, a former co-owner of the Belfield Bike Shop in Dublin, and founding chairman of the city’s cycling advocacy campaign.
20% of Ireland’s transport budget will go to walking and cycling while two-thirds of the rest will go to public transit.”
2.2 The Propensity to Cycle Tool
Making sensible cycling investment: we not only need to know what good cycling infrastructure is, but also where to build it. The UK Propensity to Cycle Tool determines where routes are need most.
Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) is an online, open-source transport planning system from the UK for improving cycling infrastructure. They researched why people cycle to identify the factors that most likely to get people on bikes.
“The PCT was designed to assist transport planners and policy makers to prioritise investments and interventions to promote cycling. The PCT answers the question: ‘where is cycling currently common and where does cycling have the greatest potential to grow?’.”
“The work was initially funded by the English Department for Transport (DfT) to create the National Propensity to Cycle Tool for England (2015-2017, with further funding in 2018-19).”
Screenshots are from the YouTube video Propensity to Cycle Tool (MRC Epidemiology Unit, 20 July 2016, YouTube, accessed 2 May 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58UaVb8ZCrc).
2.3 Go Dutch: Propensity to Cycle Tool analysis
Men cycle more than women in the ACT: for every woman cycling, there are two men. In English speaking countries this is the norm, however, in Europe women and men are just as likely to ride. It could happen here, too.
Comparing cycling in England and the Netherlands
Travel to the Netherlands and you will notice that everybody rides there – in some towns as much as 75%. The Netherlands has a mature cycling culture, and they have been working on cycling since the oil crisis in the early ’70s. A short distance away in the UK very few people cycle. London is only 357km away from Amsterdam, making the difference more remarkable.
The PCT team in the UK compared took their current circumstances (UK 2011 Census) as a baseline, and consider what is possible and normal in the Netherlands – “Go Dutch”.
What they found
“People in the Netherlands make 26.7% of trips by bicycle, fifteen times higher than the figure of 1.7% in England. In addition, cycling in England is skewed towards younger, male cyclists. By contrast in the Netherlands cycling remains common into older age, and women are in fact slightly more likely to cycle than men.”
The difference is best shown in graphs. Men are much more likely to cycle than women in England. In the Netherlands, there is no real difference. Women are 20 to 80 times more likely to cycle in the Netherlands than in England.
Graph 1A and 1B: The proportion of trips cycled in England and Netherlands, stratified by age and sex.
Graph 3: The ratio of cycle mode share in the Netherlands versus England, stratified by age and sex.
Potential for cycling
The cultures in the UK and Netherlands are generally not that dissimilar due to their close ties. Their cycling cultures, however, are quite different. The UK believes that it is possible to increase cycling participation significantly and sets the Netherlands as the standard of what is achievable.
In the ACT there is also a huge potential for improvement. Much can be learnt from the research done for the Propensity to Cycle Tool.
 UK Department for Transport, Cycle Infrastructure Design, The Stationary Office, 2020, <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf>, 30-31, [accessed 7 July 2021].
 C. Reid, ‘Ireland’s Green Party Leader, A Former Bike Shop Owner, Secures “Astonishing” Boost For Walking And Cycling’.in Forbes, , 2021, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/06/15/former-bike-shop-owner-soon-to-be-irelands-prime-minister-secures-1-million-a-day-for-5-years-boost-for-walking-and-cycling/> [accessed 7 July 2021].