Bicycle infrastructure preferences - A case study of Dublin

Abstract

This paper examines infrastructure preferences for cyclists. While the culture of cycling in the UK and Ireland has experienced some growth over the past decade, particularly in the urban areas, much debate exists as to the most favourable infrastructure types to promote cycling. In Ireland, the Irish National Cycle Policy Framework acknowledges that investment in cycling infrastructure type and quality has been ‘in many cases, inadequate’ and has, generally, not led to an overall increase in cycling numbers. Therefore, in order to ensure future investment is targeted where it is likely to be most effective in achieving adopted mode share targets for cycling, the following research has been undertaken to determine the factors which most influence cycling route choice. In particular, the research aims to determine the factors, which have greatest influence on cycle route infrastructure preference the correlation between the level of cycling confidence and preferred types of infrastructure and route characteristics. A stated preference survey, undertaken by almost 2,000 cyclists and non-cyclists, was used to gauge preferences for a range of infrastructure types and route characteristics. Results from the survey were compared against individual characteristics, such as age, gender and level of cycling confidence. This comparison provides the authors with a robust data set to determine infrastructure types, which are most likely to influence a mode shift to cycling. Results from the survey supports similar research undertaken internationally, travel time is the most critical factor in determining route choice. The second most critical factor was infrastructure type. Facilities which were segregated from traffic were the most preferred form of cycling infrastructure, regardless of cycling confidence. Interestingly, routes through residential streets and parks were the second most favoured, where no specific infrastructure is provided with the exception of improvements in way- finding. Routes which offered no facilities were least favoured and least likely to support a shift to cycling. Combined bus/cycle lanes were also negatively viewed, again regardless of cycling confidence. Unsurprisingly, the research demonstrates that cyclists and non-cyclists are most likely to choose routes with the least amount of junctions. This is also demonstrated regardless of the level of cycling confidence. The research is the first to look at the relationship betwe en route preference and cyclist volumes and concludes that cyclists with little confidence in cycling are most likely to choose routes with a higher volume of cyclists while confident cyclists, whose value of time is high, are likely to choose routes which present minimal delay and therefore fewer cyclists. It is hoped that results from the survey will provide advice and guidance to transport practioners in the planning and design of cycle networks and infrastructure