Prioritising cycle network implementation is more an art than a science.
This section discusses possible approach to determining the order in which the network will be developed.
Priority could be assigned to treating sections of routes that have the worst level of service (LOS), or to projects that provide the most LOS improvement.
Likely to be popular with existing/potential riders in tackling the worst problems first. May be easier to demonstrate improved cycle numbers with improvements to LOS.
The approach does not take demand or cost into account, although this could be overcome, for example, by assessing the cost per LOS improvement per number of cyclists who will benefit. It may therefore be very difficult to implement improvements to some of the worst LOS sites first (especially without a track record of other sites completed).
A ‘scattergun’ approach to treating isolated LOS deficiencies across the network may not result in many complete, coherent cycling routes early on.
This approach assigns priorities to existing routes with the most people already cycling, which can be based on counts at peak times. Good cycle count volumes can make it easier to generate good benefit-cost ratios.
It is important to predict the amount of use a route is likely to experience in the future – new provisions, especially those aimed at a broader target audience, can influence a significant increase in user volumes.
It is sound business practice to retain existing customers before seeking to attract new ones. Observing people’s preferred cycling routes tends to be a sounder measure of their attractiveness than theoretical models.
This approach does not consider:
That is, some existing cycling trips may be diverted from their true desire lines out of necessity, not choice, and the approach of observing existing behaviour will not help people use their true desire lines.
New provisions, especially those aimed at a broader target audience, can influence a significant increase in user volumes. Thus, instead of simply observing existing demand along certain routes, it is usually more appropriate to predict the amount of use likely to be experienced in the future.
This is a more realistic approach than simply assuming that current demand will continue and it accounts for suppressed demand and facilities aimed at broader or new target audiences.
Less likely to encounter capacity problems in the future if demand increases in response to facility provision/upgrades.
This approach requires more data, thought and computation than simply observing existing demand.
This method assigns priorities according to the crash cost savings that can be achieved, ie the routes with the greatest crash problems will be addressed first. This could include a measure of exposure, eg crashes per cycle volumes.
Results in a reduction of network crash costs.
Crash data and costs are readily available (see Determining demand for cycling in Assessing cycle demand) and will give some indication of potential dangers. Significant crash reductions envisaged can produce good benefit-cost ratios.
Crash data can sometimes be a reasonable proxy for existing usage as well.
Cyclist crash data suffers from some inadequacies. See (see Determining demand for cycling in Assessing cycle demand)
Cycle usage levels, suppressed demand and the nature of hazards must also be considered, as a low-crash cost could reflect low usage, serious hazards deterring cycle use or a high level of cyclist safety.
Priority is assigned to projects where removing a blockage on the existing cycle network would achieve the greatest increase in cyclist numbers or other cyclist benefits.
Blockages could be due to road or traffic danger (such as a pinch point or large roundabout), physical factors (such as access to a destination across an unbridged gully), or personal safety concerns (such as a secluded path or underpass).
This approach is particularly useful in relatively cycle-friendly situations where there is established demand on both sides of a blockage.
It can be difficult to predict cycle usage increases that would result from removing individual blockages.
It can be very expensive (or politically difficult) to tackle some blockages.
The easiest or cheapest elements in a programme are given priority.
A simple achievement measure, such as the total length of a cycle route meeting a certain LOS, gives an impression of achievement. This is useful when the value of a cycle route programme is questioned.
The easiest or cheapest elements are not always the most needed. The importance of the different elements also needs to be considered.
There is a risk that such a short-term approach will lead to lower-quality outcomes in the longer term. The elements completed may be scattered around and not form coherent routes or a network.
Priority is given to flagship projects that showcase attractive, high-quality facilities that others will want to emulate in their own communities. If this approach is preferred, a neighbourhood accessibility plan project could be initiated.
This can build community support for providing quality facilities of which they can be proud.
It may be expensive and use up all the budget. People may complain about the lack of facilities elsewhere.
This gives priority to spreading cycle provision across a specific area. Once a consistently high cyclist LOS has been consolidated in one discrete area, provision is spread to another. If this approach is preferred, a neighbourhood accessibility plan project or a neighbourhood accessibility planning prioritisation study could be initiated.
Consolidation may significantly increase cycling and be a more clearly demonstrable achievement. If the whole area has achieved a satisfactory standard, cycling promotion can take place without undue concerns about an unsafe environment for cycling.
Targeting an area where a high amount of cycling is expected (for example the central business district) can help achieve the best value for money.
A focus on a single area over several years may lead to charges of inequitable treatment in relation to areas that do not enjoy this investment.
Several approaches may be used together, ie a multi-criteria analysis is required, to achieve the best outcome.
The overall aim is to obtain the greatest improvement in LOS for the greatest number of people (existing and potential users), and for these benefits to outweigh the money spent to achieve it.
The cycle review or LOS criteria could usefully be combined with cycling usage data and cross-compared with crash data and project costs. Together, these may indicate a programme focus on a particular geographical area, bringing forward other lower-ranked projects and removing identified blockages. This treatment could then be repeated for the next highest-ranked area, and so on.
This approach should not, however, neglect the value of some demonstrable achievement through implementing easy or cheap network elements or some quality flagship projects. Similarly, a focus on a particular area should not neglect particularly strong needs identified elsewhere.
During implementation, it may be useful to advance a lower-ranked cycling project and combine it with the timing of a mainstream project. This could be for strategic/political reasons, to make certain projects more ‘palatable’ to groups who may oppose them. It might also help retain a balance of equity, for example by giving certain users an advantage through one project where they will be disadvantaged or left out by to another. (See Infrastructure projects under Integration in Implementation).
The prioritisation process may reveal some factors that had been omitted in the evaluation process and it may be necessary to consider this feed-back and adapt the chosen route alignments or provisions. Some iterations may be necessary.
One should not get too hung up on the precise means of determining priority; this can lead to ‘paralysis by analysis’ rather than actual work to implement parts of the network. So long as a suitable method has been used to identify the routes to be included, any process of ordering them for implementation based on logic and common-sense should suffice.
Close
