The NTA have made a dog’s dinner of cycle facility quality. Yes they are concerned about quality and yes they refer to it in the National Cycle Manual but does anyone outside the NTA really understand it?

When people are booking a hotel or apartment, they have an understanding of the ‘Star’ system of ranking. They may not understand the difference between a 2 star and 3 star hotel but they understand that a 3 star hotel is more luxurious or offers better facilities than a 2 star one and they would expect to pay more for it (all other things being equal).

So what is the story with the quality of cycle facilities? There are five levels of service – A+, A, B, C and D. Any cycle facility which does not fall into the first four is category D. Width is one of five determinants of quality the other being number of conflicts, percentage of HGVs on the route, pavement condition and journey time delay. (There has been some modification to pavement condition as a result of the development of the Greater Dublin Cycle Network but the amendments have not been incorporated into the written or digital version of the Manual.) Width is by far the most important determinant so what does the Manual say about width and level of service? The Manual assesses width in terms of the number of adjacent cyclists as shown below.

So is the width of Level C the same as Level D? And is the width of Level A the same as Level B? What width is necessary to achieve category A? In Section 1.5.2 of the Manual, there are references to widths of five cycling regimes but the Manual does not state if the cycling regimes corresponds to the Level of Service, and furthermore the exact meaning of different regimes is unclear and open to interpretation. For example what does basic two way mean? It can mean whatever you want.

Section 1.5.1 of the Manual Determining Width includes the following The designed width of a cycle facility is comprised of the effective width, i.e. the space that is “usable” by cyclists, as well as the clearances that will be required in different circumstances.

Effective width as opposed to designed or constructed width is a very important concept as it takes edge conditions into account. This is important as local authorities often provide a 2m wide cycle track which with a kerb adjacent to the footpath on one side and another kerb adjacent to a traffic lane on the other, only has an effective width of 1m.

To make matters worse, the minimum standard is defined as 3m, but whether this is effective width or designed/constructed width is not clarified and it does not define whether this is one way cycling shared with two way pedestrians or two way cycling shared with two way pedestrians. As 3m is the minimum standard in accordance with the National Cycling Manual, it is assumed that the level of service for cycling is the fifth and lowest category ie D. Then, just when you think that the NTA couldn’t complicate things further, they succeed.

In 2015, they published a Permeability Best Practice Guide which also has five levels of service but in this case they are A,B,C, D and E.

Section 3 of the Guide defines widths for the different Quality of Service (see below) but doesn’t define whether these are effective or constructed widths.

The Best Practice Guide states that local authorities in urban areas should aim to provide a Level A quality of service for any pedestrian or cycle links between residential areas and destinations such as schools and shops. Not unreasonably, the document goes on to point out that Level A will often be unachievable due to constraints but at least sets out a high target.

So where does that leave the common situation that arises where one section of a route has segregated cycle facilities and the next section has a 3m wide shared footway? Using the permeability criteria, the shared section is ranked category B and C (second and third) but using the National Cycle Manual criteria, it is D (fifth). What would you think of an organisation which ranks a hotel as one star, three star and four star at the same time? The idea of a star ranking is good. It gives politicians and the general public a crude but widely understood assessment of quality. However, the time to properly define its use is long overdue.

This article originally appeared on the website of Maynooth Cycling Campaign.

Ironic that the NTA HQ features a vehicle parked outside on the pavement

Since Census 2016 published the report on commuting in June, there has been much hype and spin in the media about increases in cycling. However, the emphasis on a much lauded increase of 42% in cycling to work puts a false gloss on the results. Percentage changes are meaningless unless related to a time span and a starting point so the Department of Transport’s spin doctor should stop combining multi year results and instead report the results in terms of annual increases. In this case the time span is five years from the previous census and the 2016 level of cycling nationally is an overall low of 2.68%. As this was approximately the level of cycling in the year 2000, cycling nationally has essentially flat-lined since then.

Source: Census 2016

Table 1: Means of Travel to Work, School and College (Nationally) 1986-2016

The increase in cycling from 2.19% in 2011 to 2.68% in 2016 is an increase of 22.6% for all people working and in education rather than the headline figure of 42% which only refers to people working. This increase equates to a more modest increase of 4.15% per annum. This would be good for a country with a high level of cycling but bad for a country like Ireland which is starting from a very low base. The increase in cycling by working people offsets a more modest increase in cycling by students to secondary school who are arguably a more important sector of the population as they are an indicator of future levels of cycling rather than ‘middle aged’ men in lycra who rediscover cycling. In this context, the greater number of female students driving to secondary school rather than cycling is a continuing cause of concern. By way of contrast, Vancouver reports annual increases of more than 30% per annum and Transport for London (TFL) report that bicycle use increased by 70% in six months on part of the high quality London Superhighways.

While the level of cycling in Dublin and other Irish cities is higher than the national level of 2.68%, Vancouver achieved 10% cycling to work from a low base in 1997 and Seville has increased its modal share for cycling from less than 0.5% in 2006 to around 7%. The National Cycling Policy Framework includes a target of 10% commuting by bike by 2020. At the rate of progress of the last five years in Ireland, the 2020 target will not be achieved nationally until 2047. This is the key statistic which comes out of the Census results and with the hype and spin stripped away, the lack of commitment and lack of progress is obvious. The implications for urban areas – more congestion, more air and noise pollution, decreased levels of activity by the general population and increased demands on the health services – are all too obvious. The failure to meet European targets on climate change will almost certainly result in a greater financial burden on the country.

Irish politicians have been “supporting” pro-bicycle policies for some twenty years but their continuing ineffectiveness is clear. When politicians in the Netherlands decided to design for bicycles rather than cars in the 1970s, the change was apparent within a year with the BBC sending a camera team overseas to record the radical developments. For similar change to happen in this country, the government must

1. Significantly increase funding for cycling from its current levels of €12 Million per annum to €145 Million per annum, and
2. Appoint a National Cycling Co-coordinator to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in accordance with the 2009 National Cycling Policy Framework.

A budget of €145 Million for cycling would amount to 10% of the 2017 transport budget and would be in line with WHO recommendations. This funding is already available under the normal budgetary process and is entirely separate from the Mid-Term Review of the Capital Budget but to date there has been no commitment at a political level to prioritise the funding of walking and cycling. The emphasis on rural greenways may seem attractive to politicians but unless hard political decisions are taken to curb private cars and to prioritise cycling in urban areas, mass cycling will remain like the draining of the Shannon – a political aspiration. In the short term, the lack of political reaction to increasing cyclist fatalities and the postponement of decisions on safe cycling infrastructure in Dublin City do not augur well.