A good one-way cycle lane width

Readers need to be aware that this post does have a bias toward giving weaker road users a higher priority for road space. My reading of these design manuals is therefore to identify the widths suitable for people new to biking [Answer is 2.01m+]. Close examination of these guides shows there are minimum widths stated. Please take care if you are looking for minimum values; we know from reading NZTA report 389 that “Narrower cycle lanes [are] three to four times less safe than wider cycle lanes.”

Copenhagen guidelines for the design of road projects – Focus on cycling  (file size 17,954 KB)

Chapter 2 Cycle tracks: Minimum width of a Copenhagen cycle track is 2.2 m

On individual sections, where there is only enough space for a very narrow cycle track (1.7-1.8 m), the cycle track may be installed if planners decide that cyclist safety, security and passability taken as a whole would be improved in relation to the current situation.

The Netherlands – CROW Design manual for a cycle-friendly infrastructure 1996 (Table 4.3*)

A one-way cycle-track of 2.00 m or narrower is not a good cycling-facility [2.01m+ is good]. This is so that cyclists have the possibility of taking evasive action during passing or overtaking manoeuvres.

(photo Koblenz)

Berlin 10 aims because berlin is turning  Aim 2: A 2m width for bicycle lanes on all main roads

The width of bicycle lanes needs to provide sufficient space for safe overtaking manoeuvres.

For more on Berlin here is link to blog post from Copenhagenize – Berlin new hope

Hamilton Business Case for Vision Zero

What we have in Hamilton is a “System failure from network characteristics, user behaviour and increasing demand resulting in deaths and serious injuries”

Continuing with the Business As Usual high priority of protecting existing levels of service for private car users has little chance of reducing the risk of deaths and serious injuries.

The targets for Hamilton’s transport programme includes no one being killed on the transport system. A change is clearly required. (p24) Access Hamilton Business Case

BAU risks the wasting of $15M – $20M per year by not reducing the number of humans killed and serious injuries by a third over 10 years period, Compared to the cost of $12m annually of possible travel delays, Saving live is good accounting. (p13-16)

In Hamilton city there are no roads with a speed limit of over 80km/h and all school have 40km/h safer speed signage. Yet the city is overrepresented compared to other peer groups for all crashes involving speed.

I’d agree the problem is ‘poor used behaviour’ and too many drivers are not responding to a balanced approach to safer speeds. Change needs leadership, speed limits are set by politician and internationally limiting speed is early and key tool used by the 900+ cities free of traffic deaths.

Opportunities come from The Hamilton Biking Plan which included four priority major projects to improve the walking and cycling network. Three are been underway or completed, leaving only the School link – providing a safe cycleway for almost 9,500 students in the Hukanui / Peachgrove road corridor, to be implemented. This link will connect 15 schools with the potential of repeating what we have at Rototuna Junior High school  where 60% the students are said to cycle to and from school.

For more on Access Hamilton here is link to Access Hamilton draft programme of works – page 29

Category: Economics, Safety