Cyclepath

Cyclepaths or segregated cycle facilities are roads, tracks, paths or marked lanes which are designated for the preferential or exclusive use of cyclists. Other modes (such as mopeds or horses) may be permitted, but drivers of heavy motor vehicles are generally not allowed to travel there. Segregated cycle facilities are distinct from other public transportation facilities where the government does not sanction the separation of individuals based on class.

Caution is required when approaching discussions of the topic. Some of the claims and counter-claims regarding cycle facilities might be best interpreted as competing ideological doctrines rather than established engineering truths. The arguments have also been characterised in terms of a social custom which reserves the roadway for motorised users.

The use and promotion of such facilities has been a source of controversy since the 1930s. Some commentators inaccurately use various terms interchangeably. In some cases this is done out of simple ignorance but in other cases this may result from deliberate attempts to confuse matters that involve serious accusations related to fatality, injury and / or legal culpability. Even the use of the word "facility" is controversial and is disputed.

Explanatory note: Terminology
While the names and definitions of the various cycle facility types vary from country to country, those types essentially fall into two categories; "On-road" and "Off-road".

"On-road" types are typically termed "cycle lanes" (United Kingdom, et al.) or "bicycle lanes" (United States, et al.), and consist of portions of a roadway or the shoulder which have been designated for use by cyclists.

"Off-road" types may exist on their own dedicated right-of-way or else run alongside an existing roadway. In the USA, off-road unsurfaced trails are commonly called "bike trails" or "mountain-bike trails", while surfaced trails that are separate from roadways and which meet more rigorous standards for width, grade and accessibility are commonly called "bike paths." In the UK and some other jurisdictions, the terms "cycle path" or "cycle track" are sometimes used as a blanket term for any such off-road facility.

For the purpose of accurate discussion this article observes the following conventions.


 * Cycleway: Road (UK) or path (USA) dedicated to cyclists on separate right of way.
 * Cycle track/Cycle path or Sidepath: Roadside converted-footway type structure alongside (but not on) a carriageway (UK) or sidepath alongside (but not on) a roadway (USA).
 * Cycle lane: A lane marked on existing carriageway (UK) or public highway (Canada), or a marked and signed portion of a roadway or shoulder (USA), that is designated for cyclist use.
 * Bicycle path/bike path/bike trail: a small paved or unpaved pathway for bicycles (Canada), either with a painted dividing line or physical barrier (grass or concrete median in the middle, similar to a freeway), but usually without. The French Canadian equivalent term is véloroute (cycleroute, bicycle trail), and is used in the province of Quebec.

Pre-motorisation
By the end of the 19th century, cycling was growing from a hobby to an established form of transport in various countries. Cyclists began to campaign to improve the existing, often poorly surfaced, roads and tracks. In the US, via groups such as the Good Roads Movement. In the UK, the Cyclists' Touring Club distributed a treatise entitled Roads:Their construction and maintenance. In Germany concerns arose regarding conflicts between cyclists, horse traffic and pedestrians leading to sections of routes being upgraded to provide smoother surfaces and/or separate portions for distinct groups.

One example of an early segregated cycle facility was the nine-mile, dedicated Cycle-Way that was built in 1897 to connect Pasadena, California to Los Angeles. Its right of way followed the stream bed of the Arroyo Seco and required 1,250,000 board feet (2,950 m³) of pine to construct. The roundtrip toll was US$.15 and it was lit with electric lights along its entire length. The route did not succeed, and the right of way later became the route for the Arroyo Seco Parkway, an automobile freeway opened in 1940.

Post motorisation (Pre World War II)
With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate motorists and improve the convenience of motoring.

Germany
In Germany, the National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to the attainment of mass-motorisation. Accordingly a mass programme of cycle track/cycle path construction was implemented. In addition, new laws were imposed to force cyclists to use segregated cycle paths. to which it is reported that German cyclists objected. The National Socialists outlawed cyclists' organisations and seized their assets or alternatively subsumed them into the state controlled Deutschen Radfahrer-Verband. By 1936, the German motoring press was also discussing the use of narrow cycle lanes marked on the carriageway, to facilitate overtaking and to frustrate cyclists in the "unpleasant" practice of cycling side-by-side.

United Kingdom
In the UK similar moves were initiated, with the first dedicated roadside cycle tracks built beside Western Avenue between Hanger Lane and Greenford Road in 1934. These soon ran into trenchant opposition from cycling groups, with the Cyclists' Touring Club distributing pamphlets warning against the threat of cycle paths. Local CTC associations organised mass meetings to reject the use of cycle tracks and any suggestion that cyclists should be forced to used such devices. In 1935, a packed general meeting of the CTC adopted a motion rejecting ministerial plans for cycle path construction. The CTC was successful and the use of cycle tracks largely fell out of favour in the UK.

Post World War II


Post-war German governments chose to continue the transportation objectives of their National Socialist predecessors, hence cyclists were viewed as an impediment to motorised traffic to be excluded and restricted whenever feasible. These policies eventually resulted in Germany largely eliminating cycling as a significant form of transport. In the UK, little use of separate cycleway/cycle track systems took place except in the so-called "new towns" such as Stevenage and Harlow. From the end of the 1960s in Nordic countries, the Swedish SCAFT guidelines on urban planning were highly influential and argued that non-motorised traffic must be segregated from motorised traffic wherever possible. Under the influence of the SCAFT guidelines cyclists and pedestrians were essentially treated as a homogeneous group to be catered for using similar facilities. The SCAFT guidelines strongly influenced cities such as Helsinki and Västerås to build large cycle path networks. By the late 1960s and 1970s, with the cyclists mainly gone, many German towns even began removing cycle tracks so as to accommodate more car parking. Increasing traffic congestion and the 1970s oil shocks contributed to a resurgence in cycling in some countries. However, outside of SCAFT-inspired developments in Nordic countries, the use of segregated cycle facilities was mainly confined to university towns with established populations of bicycle users.

1970s USA
In 1971, California state government contracted with University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for the design of bikeways (bicycle paths, bicycle side-paths, bicycle lanes). UCLA largely copied Dutch bicycle facilities practice (primarily sidepaths) to create their bikeway designs, but the derived designs were not made public.

The California Statewide Bicycle Committee (CSBC) was created by Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 47 in the 1973-74 session. The CSBC was initially composed of eight representatives of governmental and motoring organizations. A cyclist representative, John Forester, arranged to become a member at the second meeting. As the committee worked, he concluded that its real motivation for moving cyclists aside was the convenience of motorists, although the stated reason was the safety of cyclists.

Forester discovered the UCLA bikeway designs that the proposed laws were to implement, and recognized that those designs increased the dangers of car-bike collision wherever traffic crossed or turned. With the cycling opposition that he raised, Forester was able to discredit the designs and prevent enactment of a mandatory side-path law. This forced the state to start over with new bikeway design standards, which were released in 1976. Those designs were subsequently copied by the Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to form the first edition of the AASHTO Guide for Bicycle Facilities, which is widely followed in the USA.

The CSBC arranged with Kenneth D. Cross for the first reliable statistical study of car-bike collisions, expecting that this study would support their argument that same-direction motor traffic was the greatest danger to cyclists. When presented to the Committee in Sacramento on June 19 1974, Cross's study showed the opposite; only 0.5% of car-bike collisions had occurred between straight-ahead cyclists and overtaking straight-ahead motorists. The study, whose distribution was limited to those who attended the presentation, was not mentioned at all in the Committee's Final Report to the Legislature.

Cross later had a contract with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to produce an improved study (on a pseudo-random national sample) with results that were much the same. In Forester's opinion, this second study by Cross is one of the finest available on the subject. In contrast, less detailed replications performed in the late 1990s at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center were based on research that, in the words of one of the authors, "is fatally flawed".

1980s to present
The 1980s saw the start of experimental cycle route projects in Danish towns such as Århus, Odense, and Herning. In addition, the 1980s saw the Netherlands begin a large programme of cycle facilities construction as part of the so-called "bicycle masterplan". Following the "bicycle boom" of the early '80s, German towns also began revisiting the concept. The use of segregated cycle facilities is an article of faith of many organisations associated with the environmental movement. Accordingly, the rise of the "Green" movement in the 1990s has also been accompanied by vocal calls for the construction of "cycle networks" in many countries. This has led to various high profile "cycle network" projects examples of which can be found in Bogotá, Montreal, Dublin and other cities.

The safety of segregated cycle facilities
The issue of the safety of segregated cycling facilities has been one of extreme controversy since the 1930s. Since then, the established cycling lobby in the UK and Ireland has taken a critical and measured view of their utility and value. In 1947, in response to official suggestions that cyclists should use cycle-tracks, the CTC adopted a motion expressing determined opposition to cycle paths alongside public roads. In 2007, official claims of safety for cycle tracks provoked a position paper from the umbrella body for UK cyclists' groups stating "Cycle Campaign Network knows of no evidence that cycle facilities and in particular cycle lanes, generally lead to safer conditions for cycling" On the other hand, the proponents of segregated cycling facilities frequently proclaim them as being necessary to the provision of a "safe" cycling environment. However, in many cases their proponents have no established interest or expertise in cycling promotion and may include representatives of various interests such as the motoring/roads lobbies (including automobile clubs), traffic engineers, the environmental lobby, political parties, the health sector etc. In contrast to such claims, reviews of the international literature suggest a predominant finding associating the use of roadside urban segregated cycle paths with increases, some significant, in the rate and severity of car/bicycle collisions. The argument has two sides involving both direct and indirect safety.

Urban roads
The source of the direct safety problem lies in the nature of the predominant car/bicycle collision types. The majority of collisions on urban roads occur at junctions and involve turning vehicles. Rear-end type collisions are only a major factor on arterial or interurban roads. Thus accident analysis suggests that on rural/arterial routes with few junctions, providing segregated space for cyclists might lower the net number of collisions.

For urban roads, with many junctions, accident analysis suggests the opposite, that segregated cycling facilities are likely to produce a net increase in the number of collisions. These conclusions are supported by the experience of countries that have implemented segregated cycling facilities. In the U.S., UK , Germany, Sweden , Denmark , Canada and Finland , it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle tracks/sidepaths results in significant, up to 12 fold, increases in the rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1990 European conference on cycling, the term Russian roulette was openly used to describe the use of roadside cycle paths.

In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on the roads mixed in with the traffic than they are using that city's 800 km of cycle paths. The Berlin police and Senate conducted studies which led to a similar conclusion in the 1980s. In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths but these produce 75% of fatalities and serious injuries among cyclists. In the UK town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the "off-road" Milton Keynes redway system have, on a per journey basis, a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions than cyclists who simply cycle on the ordinary unsegregated roads. Cycle lanes / bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban situations but even well-implemented examples have still been associated with 10% increases in casualty rates.

However particular concern attaches to the use of cycle lanes in specific urban situations, especially large roundabouts. For adult cyclists, the standard safe cycling advice for handling roundabouts is to try to maintain a prominent position while circulating. The use of cycle lanes runs counter to this advice and places cyclists outside the main "zone of observation" of entering motorists; who represent the overwhelming source of risk (50% of collisions). In 2002, cycle lanes were removed from a roundabout in the British town of Weymouth after 20 months because the casualty rate had increased significantly. German research has also indicated that cyclists are safer negotiating roundabouts within the main traffic mix rather than on separate cycle lanes or cycle paths. A recent paper on German roundabout design practice states baldly "Cycle lanes at the peripheral margin of the circle are not allowed since they are very dangerous to cyclists". See also cycle facilities at roundabouts.

Rural / Arterial roads
Direct rear impacts with cyclists are a more prominent collision type in arterial/rural road type situations. When they occur in such circumstances they are also associated with significantly increased risk of fatality. Data collated by the OECD indicates that rural locations account for 35% or more of cycling fatalities in Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands and Spain. UK police-recorded cycling collision data indicates that at non-junction locations, where a cyclist was struck directly from behind, there was an overall fatality rate of 17%. The risk of fatality increases with speed limit of the road. Where such collisions occurred on 30 mph roads a 5% fatality rate was recorded, climbing to 13% at 40 mph, 21% at 60 mph and a fatality rate of 31% on 70 mph roads. The use of appropriately designed segregated space on arterial or interurban routes does appear to be associated with reductions in overall risk. In Ireland, the provision of hard shoulders on interurban routes in the 1970s reportedly resulted in a 50% decrease in accidents. It is reported that the Danes have also found that separate cycle tracks lead to a reduction in rural collisions.

Indirect safety
There is evidence that one of the main factors influencing the individual safety of cyclists is the base number of cyclists using the roads. See safety in numbers effect. Therefore it is arguable that if a segregated cycle facility does genuinely act to create a more attractive cycling environment, and actually attracts more people to cycle, then this effect should contribute to an overall increase in safety. For instance, a study of the accident impacts of re-engineering bicycle crossings in the Swedish city of Gothenburg attributes collision rate reductions in part to significant increases in cyclist volumes at the treated sites. In addition it has been shown that, in Western countries, the health benefits of regular cycling significantly outweigh the risks due to traffic danger. Therefore, notwithstanding a net increase in collisions, measures that promote cycling should produce an overall societal health benefit. Dutch research shows that dependent upon the mix of motorised and cyclist traffic, the effect on overall safety of changing the balance varies. They conclude that given that three times as many cyclists as car occupants are injured in collisions, and that cars harm about three times the number of other road users as bicycles do, that increasing the number of cycling journeys whilst reducing the number of car journeys would only reduce the total number of casualties in localities where the total number of car occupant casualties plus those injured by cars is greater than the total number of cyclist casualties plus those injured by bicycles. However, given their historical purpose, a positive relationship between the use of segregated cycle facilities and increased cyclist numbers cannot be assumed.

The "safety in numbers" argument has also been used to explain the apparent success of cycle facilities in some cities. In most cases, the most prominent examples of "successful" cycle networks were implemented in towns that already had significant numbers of cyclists. It is argued that in such cases this existing large cycling population already exerts a strong "safety in numbers" effect, and it is this, rather than their diversion onto off-road tracks that accounts for the higher safety seen.

Remedial measures
Various remedial measures have been developed in an attempt to solve the identified safety problems of segregated cycle facilities. In some environments these represent established engineering practice while in others they may have to be retroactively applied in response to complaints and safety concerns. Examples include the addition of a separate system of traffic signals for bicycle traffic. This can get extremely complex, particularly if there are already separate traffic signal phases for pedestrians, motorised traffic and public transport modes such as trams and/or buses. The need for a separate system of traffic lights also means that building a functioning, completely segregated, cycle path system is a non-trivial exercise in terms of both expense and engineering effort. Some treatments involve raising the cycle track onto a speed ramp type structure where it crosses side roads. In addition, various road markings have been developed in an attempt to remedy the issue of increased junction collisions. Examples of these include the use of special road markings e.g. "sharks teeth" or "elephants footprints" and special coloured treatments using red, green or blue coloured tarmac. When such treatments are implemented retroactively they are often proclaimed as safety "improvements". However, cycle-facility sceptics view such claims as, at best, disingenuous. They argue that in many cases the actual purpose is to "restore" the level of safety that existed before the marking/construction of the segregated cycle facility. An associated approach may be to "traffic calm" the bicycle traffic by introducing tight curves or bends to slow the cyclists down as they near a junction. Alternatively traffic engineers may simply remove priority from the cyclists and require them to yield to turning traffic at every side road. In 2002, engineers proposing a sidepath scheme in the Irish University city of Galway stated that cyclists would be required to dismount and "become pedestrians" at every junction on the finished route.

Road traffic legislation and its implications
One of the potential pitfalls for observers trying to interpret the operation of segregated cycle facilities is that legal assumptions which apply in one environment do not apply elsewhere. For instance, in contrast to most English speaking countries, some Northern European countries, including Germany, France, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands have defined liability legislation. Thus there is a legal assumption that motorists are automatically considered liable in law for any injuries that occur if they collide with a cyclist. This may hold regardless of any fault on the part of the cyclist and may significantly affect the behaviour of motorists when they encounter cyclists. In some countries, it may already be legal for cyclists to overtake motor-vehicles on the inside, and cyclists doing so may enjoy the protection of the law. In this case, the use of segregated cycle facilities conforms to existing traffic law. In other jurisdictions, similar "undertaking" manoeuvres by cyclists may be illegal. Such distinctions form the basis of the argument that segregated cycle facilities encourage behaviours that flout existing traffic law and in which cyclists enjoy no legal protection.

This variation also applies to the operation of traffic signals, or most importantly cyclist-specific traffic lights. For instance in Germany, but also elsewhere, at junctions with segregated facilities, all the traffic in a given direction; motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, may get a green signal at the same time. Turning motor traffic is obliged to wait for cyclists and pedestrians to clear the junction before proceeding. In this situation all the transport modes get equal green time. In contrast, UK and Irish practice restricts pedestrians to a dedicated signal phase, separate from and usually much shorter than, the green phase for motorists (e.g. 6-12 seconds vs. signal cycle times of anything up to 120 seconds). If cyclists were to be segregated and treated in a similar manner this would infer a significant reduction in green time for the cycle-traffic at every junction. In the English city of Cambridge the use of cyclist-specific traffic signals is reported to have resulted in increased delays for cyclists, leading some to ignore the cycle-facilities and stay on the road. A similar example occurred in a Parisian bikepath scheme in 1999. Cyclists faced twice the number of traffic signals as motorised traffic and were expected to wait over one minute to get seven seconds of green time. Conversely in Copenhagen, cyclist-specific traffic signals on a major arterial bike lane have been linked to provide "green waves" for rush hour cycle-traffic.

The design vehicle and design users
Other potential pitfalls in interpreting the operation of segregated cycle facilities are the issues of design vehicles and design users. The Netherlands is a flat country and Dutch town planning keeps cycling distances short. The typical Dutch town bike or "granny bike" has either no gears or a three speed hub gear and uses back pedal brakes. In other countries with different geographies and cycling cultures, bicycles may tend to have 7 to 15 gears (not counting duplicates), and a reasonably fit adult commuter can expect to reach speeds of 30 km/h (20 mph). Sports cyclists can travel even faster. With tailwinds or downhill gradients, some cyclists may exceed 50 km/h (30 mph). While a Dutch sidepath system may work for Dutch cyclists, serious questions have been raised since at least the 1970s that other cyclists using faster bicycle types cannot use such a system safely at what, for them, are normal cycling speeds. The Danish Roads Directorate acknowledges that the advent of faster bicycle types has not benefited safety since their cycle track system "functions best when cyclists travel at relatively low speeds"

In some cases designers may focus on a particular design user. The UK’s Sustrans guidelines for the National Cycle Network are based on recreational use and assume a design user who is an unaccompanied twelve-year-old. The Dublin Transportation Office has advertised their cycle facilities as being based on a design user who is an unaccompanied ten-year-old. This then raises the issue of what happens if different cyclist types find themselves forced onto such devices either by legal coercion or as a result of motorist aggression. This issue is captured in a 1996 review of the Sustrans approach from the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. "The fast cycle commuter must not be driven off the highway onto a route that is designed for a 12-year-old or a novice on a leisure trip, because if that happens, the whole attempt to enlarge the use of the bicycle will have failed "

The maintenance issue


Moving motor vehicles generate a "sweeping" effect that pushes debris such as grit and broken glass to the edge of the roadway. By excluding motor traffic, cycle lanes and cycle tracks become parts of the road that are no longer routinely "swept" thus collecting more broken glass and gravel. In addition, some off-road designs are simply not accessible to standard road sweeping equipment. One UK study estimated that cycle path users are seven times more likely to get punctures than are road cyclists. Both sides of the argument acknowledge that many cyclists will simply refuse to use poorly maintained facilities. Cycle facilities skeptics go further and argue that there is no point funding new cycle facilities unless there is a simultaneous commitment of increased funds to maintenance and sweeping afterwards. Similar problems arise in areas subject to high leaffall in autumn, or high snowfall in winter, any cycle facilities must be subject to regular clearing or else rapidly become unusable. Danish guidance specifies three different categories of cycle track. Category "A" tracks must be kept clear of snow 24hrs a day while category "B" tracks only need to be swept or cleared on a once-daily basis, category "C" receive less regular winter maintenance. For example, the city of Copenhagen spends of the order of DKK 9.9 million (US$1.72 million, EUR1.33 million) annually on maintaining its cycle track network. German federal law requires local authorities to declassify cycle tracks that do not conform to strict design and maintenance criteria.

Segregated cycle facilities and transportation cycling
There is well-established historical precedent for the use of cycle facilities as a means of promoting motoring at the expense of cyclists’ access. Despite this, it has become customary for certain commentators, particularly those associated with the environmental and/or motoring lobbies, to proclaim segregated cycle facilities as the "measure of choice" for restoring cyclist access to western cities. Perhaps understandably, this is highly controversial and is a source of, occasionally quite bitter, dispute. See also cycle path debate.

In contrast, in 1996 the Cyclists' Touring Club and Institute of Highways and Transportation jointly produced a set of guidelines Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure which placed segregated cycling facilities at the bottom of any hierarchy of measures designed to promote cycling. Planners at the Directorate Infrastructure Traffic and Transport in Amsterdam place cyclists and motorists together on roads with speed limits at or below 30 km/h, but segregate them by means of bicycle lanes when motorists are permitted to travel faster. However, this is in a context where most of the measures prioritised by Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure; HGV restrictions, area-wide traffic calming, speed limit enforcement etc, are already in place. See the Utility cycling article for more detail.

Evidence
Between the late '80s and early '90s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (the equivalent of US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure, yet cycling levels practically stayed the same. When the flagship Delft Bicycle Route project was evaluated, the results were ''“not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety”''. In the UK, a ten year study of the effect of cycle facilities in eight UK towns and cities found no evidence that they had resulted in any diversion from other transport modes to cycling A similar finding had been reported for Denmark in 1989, where it was found that there was no correlation between cycle facilities and increased cycling unless active traffic restraint measures were also present. In Denmark as a whole, the establishment of a huge cycling infrastructure has been accompanied by cycling levels that have stayed roughly stable (with minor fluctuations) since 1975. The construction of 320 km of "Strategic cycle network" in Dublin been accompanied by a 15% fall in commuter cycling and 40% falls in cycling by second and third level students. In contrast, in the late 1970s and early 1980s cycling underwent robust growth in Germany, the UK and Ireland while there was little or no investment in cycling infrastructure.

Cycle facilities vs. facilitating cyclists
A key criticism made by the opponents of such schemes is that the focus is often on constructing "cycle facilities" rather than "facilitating cyclists". It is readily apparent that there are many cities that have extensive cycle networks and also high levels of cycling. However, the most prominent examples tend to be compact, often mediaeval, university cities. This common theme has been taken to suggest that other underlying factors are driving the levels of cycle use.

Some commentators even argue that the "cause and effect" being seen is actually the reverse of that which is often claimed: That it is the presence of large numbers of cyclists that tends to precipitate the construction of segregated cycle facilities. For instance, bike planning in Davis, California was driven by the prior existence of a "dramatic volume" of cyclists in the 1960s. Possibly the best that can be said, is that in various cities, the safety of cycling, and the number of cyclists present, will result from a complex interaction of spatial planning, population density, legislative environment, and wider traffic/transportation management policies. The evidence suggests that within this mix, segregated cycle facilities can play either a positive or negative role, but this role will be secondary to other factors. The utility cycling article provides a more detailed treatment of these issues.

Cycle facilities in promoting recreational cycling


The use of separate cycleways or bike trails as a means of promoting recreational cycling is much less controversial. In Northern European countries, extensive interurban cycleway networks can be found: Denmark has had a national system of cycle routes since 1993. These may use roads dedicated to exclusively cycle traffic or minor rural roads whose use is otherwise restricted to local motor traffic and agricultural machinery. In Northern Europe, cycling tourism represents a significant proportion of overall tourist activity. The UK and US have recently implemented similar programs such as the UK's National Cycle Network. In the US, the Rails-to-Trails program seeks to convert abandoned railroad beds to recreational trails. In 2003 the longest continuous cycleway in Europe was opened, along the Albacete-Valdeganga highway in Spain, a total distance of 22 km. Bogota's Bike Paths Network or "Ciclo-Ruta" in Spanish, designed and built during the administration of Mayor Enrique Peñalosa attracts significant recreational use.

Sharing as opposed to segregation

 * Shared space
 * Hans Monderman

Additional reading

 * Collection of Cycle Concepts, Danish Roads Directorate, 2000.


 * Chapter 1000 Bikeway Planning and Design, Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, California, USA, February, 2001.