University of Adelaide Press

Chapter Title: Spaces for cycling

Chapter Author(s): Glen Koorey

Book Title: Cycling Futures

Book Editor(s): Jennifer Bonham and Marilyn Johnson
Published by: University of Adelaide Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.20851/j.ctt1sq5x1g.17

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

University of Adelaide Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Cycling Futures

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 Spaces for cycling

Glen Koorey

Introduction
Across Australasia (and indeed the world) the debate has long continued about
how to best provide for cycling. Leaving aside for now issues such as cycling
promotions, driver behaviour and relevant legislation, which are covered in other
chapters of this volume, the physical infrastructure and spaces provided play a
crucial role in ensuring that existing people cycling have adequate levels of service
(thus preventing further declines in numbers) whilst also attracting more people
to choose to cycle.
High traffic speeds and volumes, as well as poor cycling facilities, are often
identified as key deterrents to cycling in areas of relatively low cycling usage like
Australasia. There is also some tension between those who want separated (often
off-road) cycle facilities and those who prefer ‘integrated’ (on-road) facilities. The
state of the art of professional guidance in this part of the world is still rapidly
evolving; even the latest Austroads guidelines (Austroads, 2014) do not reflect
some of the most recent developments elsewhere or guidance from countries
demonstrating the world’s best practice in cycling (for example, Centre for
Research & Contract Standardisation in Civil Engineering [CROW], 2007, in the
Netherlands).

251

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

This chapter provides some reflections on these issues, based on current

research and practice in this area. It will focus particularly on on-road spaces for
cycling.

Terminology
Before continuing the discussion, it is useful to clarify some of the terminology
being used. Cycle facilities are often called by various names, which can lead to
confusion by both practitioners and the general public alike about what exactly is
being referred to. Lieswyn et al. (2012) provided a useful breakdown of cycling1
facility types, with the following key points:
• ‘Cycleway’ is generally an all-encompassing term for describing all types
of dedicated cycling facilities.
• ‘Cycle lane’ describes an on-road cycling facility, often denoted only by
road markings. A variation of this is a ‘protected’ or ‘segregated’ cycle
lane, where cycles and motorised traffic are separated by some form of
physical divider.
• ‘Cycle path’ describes an off-road cycling facility, either behind the
roadway kerb or completely away from road alignments. A ‘shared path’
also allows pedestrians2 and other non-motorised users to use it.
• ‘Cycle track’ usually describes a specific cycle path facility (originally
of Danish origin) that is separated vertically by kerbs from both the
roadway and the footpath (sometimes referred to as ‘Copenhagen
lanes’). Note that this is different from a (usually recreational and often
unsealed) ‘cycle trail’.
• ‘Separated bicycle facility’ [SBF] is sometimes used to denote those
treatments (on- or off-road) that are solely for cyclists and that provide
some form of physical separation from other road users.

1
It should be noted that the terms ‘cycling’ and ‘cycle’ are more inclusive than ‘bicycle’ or ‘bike’
when referring to infrastructure, as generally such facilities are also available for other self-propelled
vehicles, including three-wheeled cycles (for example, recumbent three-wheelers and cargo trikes).
2
‘Pedestrian’ in this case means any person on foot or using a mobility aid or means of conveyance
propelled by human power, other than by cycle — for example, a wheelchair, rollerblades, skateboard,
mobility scooter, and so on.

252

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

• There are also various treatments that do not involve a specific cycling
facility, including ‘bicycle boulevards’, shared-lane markings, wide
kerbside lanes and shared spaces.
These terminology conventions will be applied in this chapter.

Options for cycle provision

There are a number of different options that could be considered when providing
for cycling3 (this list being by no means exhaustive):
• Do nothing to an existing street, on the basis that it is already adequate
for cycling on.4
• Introduce traffic management/calming features on streets to reduce the
volume of traffic, slow down the traffic, and/or remove major pinch
points for cyclists.
• Provide marked on-road cycle lanes.
• Provide segregated cycle facilities in the road corridor, often behind the
kerb line.
• Provide cycle paths completely away from road corridors — for example,
through parks or utility corridors.
It is, in fact, likely that an overall network will contain a mixture of all of these
options. Questions may well remain, however, about what the relative proportions
should be. Certainly, around the world there has been a whole spectrum of responses
with regards to how much the pendulum swings towards on- or off-road solutions
— for example, contrast the extensive off-road networks of the Netherlands with
the historically much larger on-road component of many Anglo-centric countries
like the United States, Australia and New Zealand (although this can vary by city).

3
Note that ‘providing for cycling’ is rather different from ‘providing cycle facilities’. In many cases,
in the former instance no specific cycle facilities (such as lanes or paths) are actually provided, yet
the environment for cycling is improved.
4
Although this may be true for quiet local streets, a similar line is often put forward for streets in
general by proponents of ‘vehicular cycling’ (for example, Forester, 2001).

253

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

Cycling preferences
Various stances are often espoused by cyclists5 or would-be cyclists. Two quite
different viewpoints identified by Koorey (2005), for example, are:
• The regular experienced rider (perhaps also a serious sports cyclist)
prefers to stay on-road because of the perceived directness and lack of
hazards such as pedestrians and poor path standards. Such cyclists have
few concerns with motor traffic, so long as adequate space is provided
for them (for example, a road shoulder or cycle lane).
• The current non-cyclist (or parent of a young cyclist) is concerned
about the prospect of cycling on roads with motor traffic (especially
busy roads, or roads with high posted speed limits). As a result, such
cyclists would like to see more pathways provided, whether alongside
the road or (even better) along separate ‘green corridors’.
For someone trying to provide a network for all (potential) cyclists, it can seem
very difficult to reconcile all these conflicting viewpoints. However, as noted by
Kingham and Tranter (Chapter Seven, this volume), the latter viewpoint can often
be the key to growing cycling numbers. Frustration is also sometimes expressed by
various parties (for example, transport planners or politicians), who may feel that
people will not use the cycle facilities provided (often with an implied threat of
limiting future cycleway funding). Following the death in 2010 of a woman cycling
in Auckland who was hit by a truck, an official report suggested that she should
have used the adjacent off-road ‘cycleway’, despite the facility in question being a
very narrow and busy shared path (Dearnaley, 2012).
Examination of feedback from existing or would-be cyclists identifies
concerns that seem to centre around the perceived quality and level of service
that would be afforded by the alternative options. For example:

5
The term ‘cyclist’ will be used sparingly in this chapter. The aim is to promote and provide for
‘cycling’, not ‘cyclists’. The former term is an activity that virtually anyone can do for transport under
the right circumstances, whereas the latter often gives connotations of a relatively small bunch of
‘weird’ people who only ever cycle, or aggressive lycra-clad sports riders. Therefore, communications
like policy advice, strategic planning documents, promotional material and media releases should
also be careful not to create ‘us and them’ situations by referring to ‘cyclists’. For more information,
refer to Koorey (2007).

254

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

• On-road cycling is often associated with lots of motor traffic (often fast
and polluting), conflicts with parked vehicles, inconsistent provision for
cycling along routes, and sometimes very little space for cycling.
• Off-road cycling is often associated with narrow paths with poor
construction/maintenance standards, where conflicts with pedestrians
and other users are commonplace, and it is difficult to cross roads and
accessways (see Figure 12.1).
Clearly, a lot of this bad reputation is not due to the type of facility per se, but
the quality of facility that has been provided to date: a bad experience may leave
a strong imprint in a rider’s mind. Historically, in many countries where cycling
culture is not strong, authorities have often stinted on cycle facilities (widths in
particular have been very inadequate) and have probably paid little attention to
related issues such as traffic volumes/speeds.
It is useful to remember that some reluctance to use alternative facilities
may stem simply from lack of knowledge about what is available. For example,
while many adults who also drive may be familiar with the road network in general,
they may not know about some path alternatives or where they lead to. Similarly,
some pathway proponents may be wary of travelling along a road for fear that

Figure 12.1: Substandard shared pathway next to parking, Auckland, New Zealand.
(Source: Author.)

255

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

any cycle facilities will end abruptly and leave them in a dangerous position. This
is where extensive destination/route signage and cycle maps can be very handy
allies. New facilities should also be strongly promoted via the media when they are
completed.

Theoretical underpinnings
The ‘four types of cyclist’
Geller (2009) expounded a useful way of thinking about the various groups of
people who might be attracted (or not) to cycling. Conceived initially for the
development of the Portland bike plan (City of Portland, 2010), the ‘four types of
cyclist’ concept has subsequently found broad appeal in many other parts of the
world that are trying to grow their cycling modal share.
Essentially, the concept is that the general adult population can be placed
into one of the four following groups, based on their relationship to cycling for
transportation:
• The strong and fearless are perhaps 1-2% of the population at most, who
will ride regardless of the roadway conditions.
• The enthused and confident are 5-10% of the population — that is, those
who are comfortable sharing the roadway with motorised traffic, so long
as they are provided with their own spaces for cycling, including cycle
lanes, shoulders and intersection areas like advanced stop boxes.
• The interested but concerned are the largest group, perhaps 50-60% of
people — those who would be attracted to cycling if they had cycling
facilities separate from traffic, or alternatively streets with very low
traffic volumes and speeds.
• The final group, perhaps up to one-third of the population, are called
the no way, no how group and are simply not interested in cycling for
transportation, regardless of the environment provided.
The separation between these four broad groups is not quite as clear-cut as described
above. In reality, there is likely to be a continuum of views across the populace,
which blurs the lines (for example, certain separated cycle facilities might appeal
to some, but not all, interested but concerned people). However, this concept has

256

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

proven to be a reasonable way to understand the existing and potential cyclists

within a population.
A common theme in this categorisation is people’s relative level of concern
or ‘fear’ about cycling with traffic. This leads to identification of what it would
take to get more people cycling. For example, those cities that have provided no
more than simple unprotected cycling infrastructure — such as marked cycle
lanes — have often typically attracted less than 10% of people regularly cycling
for transport. However, those places that have invested in more separated facilities
(with many notable examples in the Netherlands and Denmark) have typically
had well in excess of 25% of the population regularly cycling.
It should be noted that the level of investment to achieve such cycling
provision in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and the like has typically been about
AU$30-40/year per capita (Holligan, 2013), whereas Australian states and
territories have generally been spending about AU$4-6/year per capita (Australian
Bicycle Council, 2014). Similar investment rates have historically been found in
New Zealand, too, although recently there have been notable examples of more
substantial expenditure, such as the NZ$70 million ‘Major Cycleways’ program in
Christchurch costing about AU$35/year per capita (Transportblog, 2014).
Geller’s typology has since been verified by Dill and McNeil (2013),
who analysed phone interviews from over 900 Portland residents. The relative
proportions of respondents across the Portland region who fell into the four
categories appeared to match Geller’s original estimates relatively well. They noted
that women seemed to be less represented in the strong or enthused categories, while
people over 35 years of age were less prominent in the strong and fearless category.
Those categorised as interested but concerned were also much more comfortable
with separated cycle facilities or quiet, low-speed streets than other treatments.
Similar research is currently underway in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The effect of speed

A significant challenge for cycle planning at present in most parts of Australasia
is the lack of acknowledgment of the role that lower traffic speeds can play in
encouraging more cycling and reducing the crash risk. In many other Western
countries, particularly in Europe, speed limits less than our conventional 50 km/h

257

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

(urban) and 100 km/h (rural) defaults are commonly used. Away from Australasia,
there is also a significant take-up in road treatments that encourage slower speeds
(for example, ‘self-explaining roads’, shared spaces and traffic-calming devices),
with or without the presence of supporting speed limits.
Although there have been a few positive localised initiatives in recent times
(for example, Charlton et al., 2010; see Figure 12.2), New Zealand has generally
been rather slow in adopting these practices, a matter that is of particular concern
both when considering the safety of cycling and encouraging a greater use of this
mode. This was acknowledged by New Zealand’s Cycling Safety Panel (2014),
whose final report identified measures to reduce traffic speeds around people cycling
as one of the high-priority recommendations. Similar cultural attitudes also exist
in Australia, with the general public not seeing the benefit in lower speed limits,
especially in urban areas (Lahausse, van Nes, Fildes, Langford, & Keall, 2009).
A number of official publications over the years have quoted the relative
effects of motor vehicle impact speed on the ‘survivability’ of pedestrians and
cyclists struck by them (for example, Ministry of Transport [MOT], 2010). Some
past studies have suggested that, at impact speeds of 70 km/h and above, the
chances of survival are less than 10%. However, more recent research by Rosén,

Figure 12.2: Low-speed street environment in Auckland, New Zealand.

(Source: Author.)

258

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

Stigson, and Sander (2011) has identified methodological flaws in the earlier
work, which resulted in a bias to more severe injuries; also, modern motor vehicle
designs and medical care are now somewhat better at minimising the injuries of
externally struck people. Nevertheless, it is clear that the relative fatality risk as
speeds go up still increases considerably. For example, Rosén and Sander (2009)
conclude that the risk of pedestrian fatality if struck at 50 km/h is twice that at
40 km/h and five times that at 30 km/h.
Koorey (2011) undertook a simple study of New Zealand pedestrian and
cycle crash severities based on speed limits, and noted a clear distinction between
the respective fatality rates (pedestrians being higher). Most overseas studies (such
as those identified by Rosén et al., 2011) have focused on pedestrian impacts, and
the findings have then been assumed to translate to other similarly vulnerable
road users like cyclists. The findings of the New Zealand research suggest that this
is not correct, possibly due to the different relative speeds of cyclists, the types of
collisions, the ages of the two road user groups, and the mechanics of impacts with
bicycles. Further research into this issue would be worthwhile.
Perceptions of quiet streets can also affect the likelihood of people
undertaking active modes in the first place. For example, Trumper (2013)
investigated a number of pairs of adjacent residential streets in Christchurch,
New Zealand, one with a normal 50 km/h street environment and one with a
lower-speed ‘slow zone’ environment. Residents who were interviewed noted that
traffic speed and safety had ‘some-moderate’ influence on average on their own
propensity to walk to local destinations. However, when it came to their children,
parents were more protective with regards to the speed of traffic and safety of
their children, with traffic speed and safety having a ‘moderate-large’ influence on
average. Respondents also felt safer walking down the slow zone street, compared
with the untreated street, particularly in terms of crossing it. This is also reflected
in the perception that 73% of residents felt that traffic in the slow zone travelled
more slowly than traffic in the untreated street. It is reasonable to conclude that
similar perceptions would apply when deciding whether to cycle or not. Traffic
speed has also been cited by Jacobsen, Racioppi, and Rutter (2009) as a reason for
people not walking or cycling as much as desired. Kingham and Tranter discuss
the effects of speed further in their earlier chapter (Chapter Seven) in this volume.

259

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

Hierarchy of cycling treatments

Provision for cycling may not require specific cycle facilities en route. The following
‘five-step hierarchy’ of treatments, developed in the United Kingdom (Institution
of Highways and Transportation [IHT], Cyclists’ Touring Club [CTC], Bicycle
Association, & Department of Transport, 1996), has been previously proposed
when providing for cycling in the existing transport network. Practitioners
considering cycle treatments for a particular route work their way down the
hierarchy, testing the feasibility of each step.
1. Reduce traffic volumes: Local area traffic management schemes
(particularly where cyclists can bypass the closures and restrictions) and
off-road shortcuts are some ways of achieving this (see Figure 12.3).
2. Reduce traffic speeds: Lower speeds reduce the speed differential
between cyclists and motor vehicles and the risk of severe injury (as
well as the perceived risk). Some options here include 30-40 km/h

Figure 12.3: Cycle bypass of a street closure, Melbourne, Victoria.

(Source: Author.)

260

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

(20-25 mph) speed zones, traffic-calming measures, narrowing of very

wide carriageways, and deflection at roundabouts.
3. Intersection treatment and traffic management: Many of the biggest
impediments for cycling are actually relatively small ‘pinch points’ —
for example, no waiting space at intersections, narrow shoulders and
bridges, difficult locations for crossing or turning. These should be
identified and addressed.
4. Reallocation of, or additional, carriageway space: Road corridors
often have more than enough room to cater for cycling, particularly if
underused or oversized traffic/parking lanes and medians are removed
or modified, or if shoulders are extended.
5. Specific cycle facilities: If the above approaches are not appropriate,
then specific provision of cycle lanes, pathways and underpasses/
overbridges may be required.
The first thing to notice about this list is that traditional ‘cycle facility’ solutions
are at the very bottom — that is, they should be the last thing to consider. The
next thing to notice is that the treatments above this are often barely discussed in
some district cycling strategies.
One has to be a bit careful about interpreting this hierarchy. For example, it
could be argued that an off-road cycle path helps to meet Objectives 1 and 2 in the
hierarchy by shifting cycling away from traffic. This is no good, however, to many
riders if the path in question is less direct than the on-road route they would prefer
to take, or if it introduces new problems at intersections and road crossings (violating
hierarchy Objective 3) or if the path creates problems for cyclists from sharing the
space with pedestrians and other non-motorised users (hierarchy Objective 4).
In many respects, the hierarchy is intuitive in terms of why many people say
they do not cycle. The stock reply is often, ‘Cycling is too dangerous’ (for example,
in Kingham, Taylor & Koorey, 2011). However, if this response is teased out, then
more specific answers are likely to be, ‘I’m afraid of all that traffic’; ‘The traffic is
much too fast’; ‘I hate the pinch point at location xyz’; or ‘I keep getting squeezed
by motorists’. Tellingly, these responses are dealt with by the first four steps of the
hierarchy. It is far less likely for people to not cycle solely because there are no
cycle facilities en route.

261

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

The hierarchy also reflects the fact that, even with a comprehensive network
of cycle facilities, the end points of many cycle trips will be on the conventional
street network, and much of the cycling is also likely to be away from specific cycle
facilities. This point may not be an issue if the final destination happens to be a
quiet residential cul-de-sac; it may be more of a problem if the cyclist is heading for
a major shopping centre on an arterial road. These trips also need to be catered for,
and using the hierarchy provides a total network approach. Therefore municipal
agencies should always take heed of the credo from the famous Geelong Bike Plan
of 1977: ‘Every street is a cycling street’ (State Bicycle Committee, 1977).
Everyone should be able to coherently access all of their desired destinations
by cycle. Using the hierarchy allows one to concentrate more on area-wide
treatments. As explained by Patterson, Crowther & Solly (2003), this avoids
the problem whereby only certain ‘routes’ are improved for cycling, while other
streets do not receive any consideration and often become worse over time for
cycling (particularly if traffic conditions continue to get worse). Focusing solely
on site- and route-based cycle provision marginalises those who have to cycle
via other routes. Therefore, some consideration needs to be given to treatments
that ensure adequate cycle provision in non-priority areas. For example, local area
traffic management and low-speed residential zones can be used across large areas
to make cycling more attractive in those areas, or intersections could be treated to
improve cycle crossing ability.
Parkin and Koorey (2012) note that a flaw of the ‘five step hierarchy’ is
that it presumes that the route has already been determined (typically along a
road), and that it is now just a matter of identifying the correct treatment. They
suggest that spatial planning and demand modelling are important prior steps to
considering the broader network first. These steps may include the identification,
provision and protection of suitable corridors for cycling (whether along road
networks or elsewhere). Otherwise, one may be constrained in terms of optimal
treatment options available via the ‘five step hierarchy’ process.

‘Best practice’ guidance

Land Transport New Zealand [LTNZ] provides some useful advice about the
merits of roads and paths (2004). Some key points highlighted include:

262

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

• It is generally only practical to consider a fully segregated (off-road)

cycle network when planning new suburbs and townships.
• Where comprehensive off-road networks have been developed with
poor standards and little directness or coherence, they have failed to
provide a greater modal share for cycling. The experience of Milton
Keynes’s ‘Redways’ in the United Kingdom is a salutary lesson in this
regard (Franklin, 1999).
• Increased segregation from motor traffic is usually accompanied by
increased interference from pedestrians, pets, skateboarders, slower
cyclists and so on.
• One choice (path or road) is not inherently safer than another; both
can be hazardous and both require high-quality design to achieve safety.
• The needs of commuter and leisure can potentially be met by both road
and path solutions: it is incorrect to assume that they require mutually
exclusive facilities.
• Along paths, the freedom from traffic danger brings obvious benefits
for novice and child cyclists, who can focus on practising basic cycle
control skills.
LTNZ (2004) also suggests that dual networks may be pragmatic in some cases to
provide a range of options for different cyclists. In Christchurch, New Zealand,
for example, an off-road pathway was constructed adjacent to a high school and
intermediate school to help pupils cycling to school. The adjacent road is also a
popular adult commuter route and so on-road cycle lanes have been provided
as well.

Surveying would-be riders

Kingham et al. (2011) investigated the barriers to cycle use in New Zealand,
with a specific focus on the infrastructure needed to attract people who do not
cycle regularly for utility trip purposes. The researchers surveyed workplaces,
recreational cyclists and community groups in Christchurch to identify potential
(but not current) regular utility cyclists. Focus groups were then held with them
to discuss the motivations for, and barriers to, cycling. In addition, a series of
plans and pictures of various types of cycling infrastructure (both mid-block and

263

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

intersections) were shown. Participants were asked to rate each of the options on
a four-point qualitative scale regarding how often they would cycle if the option
shown was the standard along their utility cycle routes, and if their other personal
barriers had been eliminated.
Common barriers to utility cycling were identified in the focus groups. Safety,
particularly traffic behaviour and the perceived safety of cycle lanes, was clearly
of most importance. Less crucial, but also mentioned regularly, were workplace
showering or changing facilities and the simple enjoyment of the journey. People
would cycle when the route was attractive, but also when it was considered safe,
so that they did not have to be constantly on their guard for motorists’ behaviour.

Cycling infrastructure preferences

Participants in the focus groups were shown examples of a variety of different types
of cycle infrastructure for mid-block street sections, signalised intersections (both
through-movements and right-hand turns) and roundabouts. These examples
(presented in random order) drew on existing New Zealand and international cycle
infrastructure and ranged from no specific provision through a variety of on-road
and off-road treatments. Brief discussion was also raised with the participants in
regard to traffic calming and local area traffic management as means of providing
a cycle-friendly environment without cycle facilities. However, there was little
understanding and hence enthusiasm displayed for these options, possibly due to
the lack of experience of such environments in New Zealand.
The most preferred type of facility for mid-block street sections were
kerbed cycle tracks adjacent to the traffic lane, as they were seen to be keeping
the rider in the view of vehicles; or, alternatively, a path between parking and
the footpath. For signalised intersections where cyclists were performing a
straight-ahead manoeuvre, the favoured infrastructure was on-road cycle
lanes; and for right-hand turn manoeuvres, the most preferred were hook-turns
(where cyclists stay on the kerbside and cross in two phases; see Figure 12.4: A
hook turn box to allow two-stage right turns, in Christchurch, New Zealand.
(Source: Author.)4). ‘Head-start’ traffic signals for right-turning cyclists were also
liked by participants, but interestingly there were concerns about delaying the
general traffic with this type of facility.

264

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

Figure 12.4: A hook turn box to allow two-stage right turns, in Christchurch,
New Zealand.
(Source: Author.)

Roundabouts continued to be viewed as extremely difficult, with most

participants preferring signalised intersections. Although the research attempted
to focus participants’ attention on low-speed, single-lane roundabouts, clearly their
responses were influenced by many of the higher-speed, multi-lane roundabouts
prevalent in New Zealand. Underpasses were considered extremely safe in the
physical sense, but there were concerns for social safety, particularly after dark.
There seemed to be little agreement on other types of roundabout infrastructure,
such as cycle lanes or paths; both had benefits and difficulties.
An interesting observation from the focus group discussions was the lack of
understanding of how to use some of the treatment options presented, even when
they were already reasonably prevalent around Christchurch. Participants were
not always clear about when they should use certain facilities, where they should
position themselves, or what their rights were in respect to other road/path users
(or whether those other users knew what to do). Some participants noted that
the facilities generally did not have sufficient explanatory material (for example,
advance signs), and that there was virtually no public education on using these

265

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

facilities. Participants pointed out that if there was more consistency of cycling
infrastructure, then all road users would be more likely to understand how to use
various facilities — and consequently inexperienced people would have more
confidence when cycling.
It is important to provide a type of infrastructure that will appeal to current
utility cyclists but, perhaps more importantly, will also attract the ‘next 10%’ of
people to regularly cycle for utilitarian reasons. The findings suggest that potential
cyclists (in Christchurch, at least) will be attracted to regular cycling through a
network of infrastructure that provides separation from other users rather than
shared space. The results displayed a common trend of people preferring to have
some level of separation from traffic but to be kept within view of drivers. While
sharing with pedestrians was also disliked (it was seen as no better than marked
cycle lanes), it was preferred to sharing space with motor vehicles.

Some lessons learned

The above discussion leads to some emerging trends in regards to cycling provision
in Australasia, which will be explored below.

On-road marked cycle lanes

Cycle lanes help to specify where motor vehicles and riders should position them­
selves to safely interact. They also have a useful side effect: their mere presence
helps to remind motorists of the possibility of people cycling nearby, making them
more likely to (even subconsciously) ‘look for cyclists’. The relative narrowing of the
remaining traffic lane by installation of cycle lanes can also provide a slight speed-
calming effect (Fowler & Koorey, 2006). The relatively low cost of cycle lanes has
made them a long-time favourite of many Australasian roading authorities (the bigger
hurdle often being when their introduction requires the removal of car parking).
However, for many people there is only limited appeal to use them for
cycling, and there are even regular claims that cycle lanes are ‘dangerous’. Where
poorly designed lanes have been created (for example, under-width lanes next to
parked vehicles), this response is perhaps justifiable. However, recent evidence
would suggest that well-designed cycle lanes have a useful safety benefit.
Parsons and Koorey (2013) investigated the relative effects on cycle

266

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

count and crash numbers of installing a series of cycle lanes. Twelve routes
(approximately 24 kilometres in total) installed in Christchurch during the
mid-2000s were analysed, together with three previously installed control sites.
Ongoing cycle count data from a series of route locations was used to establish
cycling trends before and after installation. These were also compared against
cycle crash numbers along these routes during the same periods. Overall, the
average reduction in the cycle crash rate (crashes per kilometre cycled) was 43%,
with 7 of 12 treated routes experiencing a reduction in crash rates of 40% or
greater. Adjusting for the observed control site crash reductions, the expected
overall average crash reduction after installing cycle lanes was 23%.
Further improvement of the perception of existing cycle lanes may come from
the simple introduction of low-cost separators. A wide variety of physical devices
and delineators are now available to provide such separation. Koorey, Wilke, and
Aussendorf (2013) investigated on-road trials in Christchurch of low, raised cycle-
lane separators and vertical delineator posts. Separators were placed in two locations
where motorists were commonly encroaching into cycle lanes, on the inside of curves
and approaching intersections. Road-user behaviour was observed before and after
installation, and qualitative feedback was also sought from site users.
The results showed a significant effect on reducing motor vehicle
encroach­ ments following installation, particularly when the low separators
were supplemented by vertical posts. Very positive feedback was also received
from existing cyclists, especially women. Further cycle lane separators have
subsequently been retrofitted around Christchurch (see Figure 12.5: Cycle lane
with separator posts and coloured surfacing in Christchurch, New Zealand.
(Source: Author.)). Another useful treatment is the act of colouring conflict
points — for example, Koorey and Mangundu (2010) found that motorists were
significantly less likely to encroach into cycle lanes and boxes at intersections if
they had coloured surfacing.

Separated cycle facilities

The cycle lane separator trials mentioned above highlight a growing interest
in Australasia in introducing various forms of separation from at least motor
traffic (if not pedestrians, too) as part of cycleways along arterial routes.
This mirrors a similar trend in North America over the past five years,

267

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

Figure 12.5: Cycle lane with separator posts and coloured surfacing in
Christchurch, New Zealand.
(Source: Author.)

Figure 12.6: A two-way separated cycle path in central Brisbane, Queensland.

(Source: Author.)

which has seen a proliferation of new protected cycle facilities, particularly

inspired by new technical guidance there (National Association of City
Transportation Officials [NACTO], 2010). In a similar fashion, separated
cycle facilities have been trialled in all the main Australian state capitals (see

268

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

Figure 12.6: A two-way separated cycle path in central Brisbane, Queensland.

(Source: Author.)), as well as New Zealand cities such as Auckland and
Christchurch. A plethora of options for separation have appeared (such as kerbs,
low islands, delineator posts, longitudinal barriers, planter boxes, and so on); and,
other than issues of available width, there seems to be little evidence so far to
recommend one treatment over the other.
The catalyst has come from many sources. Geller’s (2009) ‘four types’
typology has certainly had an influence in trying to better target the interested
but concerned market. Research like that by Kingham et al. (2011) has helped
to confirm the support for such facilities from potential riders in this part of the
world. There is also an element of official acceptance (finally) to the fact that
nothing else to date has been successful in achieving the high levels of cycling
common in many parts of Europe.
Separated cycle facilities are often seen by lay-people in particular as the
panacea for cycling, based on their use in European countries where cycling is
popular, such as the Netherlands and Denmark. There is no doubt that well-
designed cycle paths and tracks can be wonderful facilities for cycling. However,
it is also important to understand why the European examples cannot always be
taken at face value in Australasia.
• In many European countries, the traffic regulations give right of way
over side roads to everyone travelling along a road corridor, including
cyclists and pedestrians on paths. Here in New Zealand and Australia,
the same level of priority is not present (and there is also some
uncertainty by New Zealand transport officials about whether an on-
road separated cycleway is still considered part of the ‘roadway’). People
cycling are less likely to use separated cycleways if they continually have
to give way when crossing side roads.
• European motorists are more likely to expect riders appearing from a
path than their Australasian counterparts would be (especially from
their left side when entering the main road), since cycle volumes are
generally higher and the concept of pathways off the carriageway has
long been established.
• Many European facilities are truly segregated between cyclists and
pedestrians; there are separate ‘exclusive’ paths for each road user and

269

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

these are widely respected. In Australasia, a common approach is to

provide a shared path (and with few rules for path behaviour). People
are less likely to cycle on a path if they feel that the pedestrian volumes
and available width do not allow them sufficient unimpeded progress.
One should be particularly wary of taking the ‘easy option’ to provide separation
(for example, by just widening and marking an existing footpath). A well-designed
separated cycleway can also require considerable expense to plan and construct
(particularly at intersections). Other problems that may be encountered include
parking removal, suitable intersection treatments, and general resistance by the
public to ‘new’ facilities. The last problem is particularly important to manage
when introducing initial trials, lest it threatens to derail future projects; witness
the ‘controversy’ surrounding the implementation of cycleways on Bourke Street,
Sydney (McDougall, 2011), and Frome Street, Adelaide (Templeton, 2015).
Whilst on-road cycle facilities are invariably one-way on each side of the
street, many separated cycleways can be provided as two-way cycling facilities.
There may be some practical advantages to doing so (for example, less street
width required, thereby avoiding problematic side accesses). However, there are
also potential complications in terms of relative safety at intersections (if crossing
traffic is not expecting riders in the ‘opposite’ direction) or in the ease with which
riders can access the facility from the other side of the street.

Neighbourhood greenways and quiet streets

In Australasia and many other parts of the world, physical provision for cycling
often focuses on specific cycle infrastructure, such as cycle lanes and pathways. Yet,
as noted by Koorey (2012), some of the best cycling routes in the world have few
conventional cycle facilities. Neighbourhood greenways (aka ‘bicycle boulevards’
or ‘local street bikeways’) are a form of street treatment where simple measures
such as lower speeds, traffic restraints, wayfinding, and crossing treatments are
used to create an environment that is friendly for cycling. They are particularly
useful for connecting people to community facilities such as schools, parks, shops
and other key destinations in a neighbourhood and beyond. Neighbourhood
greenways [NGs] are a popular tool in North America, but have yet to catch on in
Australasia, despite many similarities in street environment.

270

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

NGs historically had their origins in proposals to make certain streets more
cycle-friendly and less attractive to motor vehicles. In Europe this included the
development of ‘bicycle priority streets’ (fietsstraat) in the Netherlands (Ministerie
van Verkeer en Waterstaat [MVW], 2009), but the more benign ‘bicycle boulevards’
appear to have had their origins on the west coast of North America, where they
were first implemented in Palo Alto, California in 1981, on a 3-kilometre length of
Bryant Street (City of Palo Alto, 1982).
Other cities followed suit with NGs, including Berkeley (California),
Albuquerque (New Mexico), Minneapolis (Minnesota), Vancouver (British
Columbia) and Portland (Oregon). The grid nature of many North American cities
lends itself to developing suitable quiet cycling routes that are parallel to other
busier routes. In Australasia, ‘greenways’ have been developed in suburban areas
of Adelaide; and in New Zealand there are NGs under planning and construction
in Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin.
Unlike separated cycleways, the key to NGs is successful integration of road
users. Taking its cue from the aforementioned ‘five step hierarchy’, this integration
relies heavily on the removal of unnecessary motor traffic and the slowing down
of any remaining traffic. One common tool to reinforce this shared behaviour
is the use of shared use arrows or ‘sharrows’; they can be found on Adelaide’s
greenways (see Figure 12.7) and are currently being formally trialled at various
locations in New Zealand (Hancock & Patel, 2014). The evidence to date suggests
that sharrows can result in a slight calming effect on motorist speeds, and better
lateral positioning by both riders and drivers alike.
NGs, if done well, can be a very important and cost-effective part of the
cycle network. Research by Dill and McNeil (2013) indicates that the interested
but concerned are quite comfortable with street environments of this nature. The
majority of streets in typical urban networks are relatively low-volume local streets,
where a formal cycle facility would often seem unnecessary. NGs allow for rapid
expansion of cycling routes, particularly in suburban areas connecting residents to
many local community facilities.

271

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

Figure 12.7: A neighbourhood greenway in Adelaide, South Australia, featuring

‘sharrow’ markings.
(Source: Author.)

Figure 12.8. A separated cycleway with some ambiguity over side-road priority,
in Nelson, New Zealand.
(Source: Author.)

Intersection treatments
Although much of the attention of cycling tends to focus on the mid-block cycle
facilities, in terms of safety it is the intersections that are more crucial. Typically
more than two-thirds of all cycle crashes occur at intersections and driveways

272

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

(Cycling Safety Panel, 2014). Intersection treatments also play an important part
in providing connections of local cycling routes across arterial roads (for example,
as part of NGs). A lack of such treatments can result in isolated ‘islands’ of cycling
comfort, severed by busy roads; in such an environment it would not be surprising
to see low levels of cycling.
As more separated cycle facilities are developed in Australasia,
a growing problem is how best to continue them across intersections.
Cycleways that are set too far back (for example, behind parked vehicles or
medians) may be less noticeable to turning traffic, leading to unexpected
conflicts. Clarification may also be needed to identify which party has right
of way when crossing a side road (see Figure 12.8. A separated cycleway
with some ambiguity over side-road priority, in Nelson, New Zealand.
(Source: Author.)8). At busy signalised intersections, it may be prudent to separate
the signal phases for cyclists and turning traffic, since many serious cycle crashes
involving heavy vehicles often feature this type of conflict.
The different problems faced at intersections compared with mid-block
locations are highlighted by Danish research (Jensen, 2008), which found that,
while off-road cycle tracks were safer in general than their on-carriageway
counterparts, they were less safe at intersections. Stichting Wetenschappelijk
Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid [SWOV] (2010) therefore recommended that
cycle tracks parallel to roads should either rejoin roads ahead of intersections or
be taken further away to cross the side roads.

Rural cycling facilities

Generally less than 10% of all cycling occurs in rural areas, limited mostly to
training cyclists, cycle tourists, and cyclists making short inter-town trips. However,
the significant difference in motor vehicle speeds means that typically about half
of all cycle fatalities occur on rural roads (Koorey, 2014). These ensure that the
profile of rural cycling safety is given high prominence by the public and policy
makers alike.
As mentioned above, the predominant cycle crash type overall is intersection-
related, and 30% of rural cycle crashes occur at intersections. However, rural
roads are more likely to feature same-direction crashes, where a motor vehicle has

273

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

either clipped a cycle while passing or hit the cycle from behind (perhaps going
around a blind corner). New Zealand’s Cycling Safety Panel (2014) noted that
lack of shoulder width is a significant factor; an analysis of rural New Zealand cycle
crashes and sealed shoulder widths found that the majority of crashes occur where
there is no (or relatively negligible) road shoulder. A program of targeted shoulder
widening would therefore have great benefit for cycling, although technically the
greatest economic benefits of such widening are generally for others in terms of
road safety, traffic efficiency and maintenance costs.
However, long lengths of seal widening are costly, particularly in difficult
terrain. A more cost-effective solution in many places may be to concentrate on
the areas where sight distance is very limited. A narrow but straight section of road
may not pose too many dangers if motorists have enough time to safely move over
when passing cyclists. Instead, it may be prudent to focus on providing localised
seal widening around horizontal curves, over vertical crests, and at other localised
pinch points like narrow culverts. It is important to remember that for many rural
roads there are no feasible alternative routes, so any pinch point has to be endured
by all cyclists going that way. Bridges and tunnels present some of the most difficult
barriers for cycling, through either their narrowness or lack of cycling access.
Opportunities to use paths and corridors away from traffic certainly should be
encouraged where possible. But in rural areas there are often fewer possibilities to
do this. Therefore it is vital that motorists and cyclists can safely coexist on the
same road.
If widening is not an option due to topography or cost, then one option is
to consider warning signs and markings. A common treatment in North America,
particularly ahead of narrow bridges and tunnels, is the use of ‘active warning’
signs that flash for approaching traffic when triggered by passing riders. Similar
treatments have been installed in rural locations in Nelson and Marlborough,
New Zealand (Gardener & Kortegast, 2014). Where additional road width
cannot be provided on low-volume rural roads, another option is to reconfigure
the cross-section to provide two shoulders and a single traffic lane (preferably
with a lower speed limit). This ‘2 minus 1 road’ configuration is common in rural
roads in Scandinavia and the Netherlands (Erke & Sørensen, 2008) and is being
considered for trialling in New Zealand.

274

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

Car parking
A discussion about spaces for cycling would not be complete without considering
the challenge that on-street car parking presents when providing for cycling
in urban environments. On many arterial or commercial roads, considerable
controversy is raised when fitting in a proposed cycleway requires the removal
of on-street parking (or the removal of a traffic lane if the parking is considered
sacrosanct). Retailers and motorists alike often raise concerns about the effect on
businesses and accessibility, particularly for what is often seen as ‘a few cyclists’.
Fleming (Allatt), Turner, and Tarjomi (2013) investigated the economic
impacts of road space allocation in shopping areas located in various New
Zealand cities. Retail spending data showed that non-car users accounted
for 40% of the total spend in the shopping areas, despite being only 37% of all
respondents; typically, they spent less per trip than those who drove, but visited
more frequently. The study also identified that retailers generally overestimate
the importance of on-street parking outside shops. Shoppers valued high-
quality pedestrian and urban design features in shopping areas more than
they valued parking, and those who drove were willing to walk to the shops

Figure 12.9: Reallocation of central city street space to bike parking and a cycle
lane, Adelaide, South Australia.
(Source: Author.)

275

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

from other locally available parking areas. Similarly, Lee and March (2007)
investigated the value of on-street parking in Melbourne and identified that bike
parking provided better use of space (see Figure 12.9: Reallocation of central
city street space to bike parking and a cycle lane, Adelaide, South Australia.
(Source: Author.)), in terms of retail expenditure per square metre, than car
parking.
Beetham (2014) investigated the feasibility of a proposed cycleway in
Wellington, New Zealand, between the southern suburbs and city centre, with a
particular focus on the impact that removing some on-street car parks along one
section might have on businesses in the area. A survey of around 600 people found
that a significant majority of respondents said they would be willing to consider
the removal of some on-street parking to provide for safe cycle routes — even
those who were not interested in cycling. This was mostly because of their concern
for cycle safety or because, as drivers, they found sharing the road with cyclists
stressful. An additional survey of shoppers along the street showed that only 6%
were using the on-street parking there.
Similar concerns about parking are often expressed in suburban neighbour­
hoods by residents worried that guests will not be able to easily visit. In most cases,
however, there are ample alternatives (not including cycling there instead), such as
other nearby streets or off-street locations. Field data in many places typically notes
exceptionally low parking occupancy rates on suburban streets and thus inefficient
use of what is a valuable resource (for example, providing parking on both sides of
a street when occupancy never even reaches 50%).

Conclusion
From the above discussion, a few key points emerge. A lot of the perceived past
problems with cycle facilities, both on- and off-road, have been due to inadequate
design or maintenance standards rather than the choice of facility. This can (and
should) be resolved; and better training and technical guidance is helping to address
this. New facilities should be up to scratch from day one, to avoid any ‘bad press’
from riders, which may taint their perception of similar facilities in the future.
From a technical perspective, there can be safety issues with both on-
and off-road cycle facilities — that is, one is not inherently safer than the other.

276

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

(Indeed, it may be the intersection treatments that determine the relative safety.)
Obviously, it is desirable that all types of cycle provision are made adequately
safe. Even with appropriate design, there may still be some incorrect perceptions
by the general public or elected members about the relative merits of some cycle
treatments. Education campaigns may be useful to inform these parties of the true
characteristics of these treatments in terms of safety, level of service, and so on.
Some of the best solutions for cycling may not involve cycle facilities at all.
Streets that are adequately managed to minimise motor vehicle speeds and volumes
are likely to be very pleasant environments for cycling, at relatively low cost. The
role of lower traffic speeds is also a very important (and under-appreciated) part of
protecting people while cycling. Transport planners attempting to provide only one
type of cycle treatment throughout a district will probably find situations where
an alternative solution would be far more beneficial and/or practical. A ‘horses for
courses’ approach is recommended instead.
It is important to acknowledge that perceived risk may play a large part in
acceptance and usage of cycling facilities by a greater number of people, irrespective
of actual known risks. To this end, while intersection treatments are often critical
to improving the overall safety of people cycling, it may be that attractive mid-
block treatments are the key to getting more people to cycle in the first place. User
behaviour is just as important as engineering when it comes to best-practice cycle
facilities. Campaigns to educate cyclists, motorists and pedestrians alike on how
to use various facilities and interact with each other should be considered. Better
driver behaviour would make cyclists more comfortable on the road, whilst better
path-user behaviour would make them happier off the road.

References
Australian Bicycle Council. (2014). National cycling strategy 2011-16: 2013
Implementation Report. Sydney: Austroads. Retrieved 11 August 2015 from
http://www.bicyclecouncil.com.au/publication/national-cycling-strategy.
Austroads. (2014). Cycling aspects of Austroads guides. Austroads Publication
No. AP-G88/14. Retrieved 11 August 2015 from www.onlinepublications.
austroads.com.au/items/AP-G88-14.
Beetham, J. (2014). Re-cycling the streets: Exploring the allocation of public space for

277

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

transport (Master of Environmental Studies thesis, Victoria University of

Wellington, New Zealand).
Centre for Research & Contract Standardisation in Civil Engineering [CROW].
(2007). Design manual for bicycle traffic. Record No. 25. Ede, the
Netherlands: CROW.
Charlton, SG, Mackie, HW, Baas, PH, Hay, K, Menezes, M, & Dixon, C. (2010).
Using endemic road features to create self-explaining roads and reduce
vehicle speeds. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 1989-1998. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.006.
City of Palo Alto. (1982, December 9). Bicycle boulevard demonstration study —
Evaluation. Staff report to city council. Palo Alto, USA: City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division.
City of Portland. (2010). Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030. Retrieved 11 August
2015 from http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597.
Cycling Safety Panel. (2014, December). Safer journeys for people who cycle: Cycling
Safety Panel final report and recommendations. Wellington: New Zealand.
Dearnaley, M. (2012, July 28). Outrage over claim cyclist caused own death. The
New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 13 August 2015 from http://www.nzherald.
co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10822770.
Dill, J, & McNeil, N. (2013). Four types of cyclists? Examining a typology to
better understand bicycling behavior and potential. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2387, 129-138.
doi: 10.3141/2387-15.
Erke, A, & Sørensen, M. (2008). Extended road shoulders on rural roads: A
measure for cyclists and pedestrians? TØI report 961/2008. Oslo, Norway:
Institute of Transport Economics.
Fleming (Allatt), T, Turner, S, & Tarjomi, L. (2013, August). Reallocation of road
space. NZ Transport Agency Research Report 530. Wellington: New Zealand.
Forester, J. (2001). The bikeway controversy. Transportation Quarterly, 55(2), 7-17.
Fowler, M, & Koorey, G. (2006, October 8-11). The effects of the pages
road cycle lane on cyclist safety and traffic flow operations. IPENZ
Transportation Group Technical Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand.
Franklin, J. (1999). Two decades of the Redway cycle paths in Milton Keynes.
Traffic Engineering + Control, 40(7/8), 393-396.
Gardener, R, & Kortegast, P. (2014, March 23-26). Vehicle activated electronic
signs — 5 years on. IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Wellington,

278

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

New Zealand.
Geller, R. (2009). Four types of cyclists. Portland, OR: Portland Office of
Transportation. Retrieved 11 August 2015 from www.portlandoregon.gov/
transportation/article/237507.
Hancock, K, & Patel, A. (2014, October 29-31). Sharrows — More than just a
marking. 2WALKandCYCLE Conference 2014, Nelson, New Zealand.
Holligan, A. (2013, August 7). Why is cycling so popular in the Netherlands?
BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 11 August 2015 from http://www.bbc.com/
news/magazine-23587916.
Institution of Highways and Transportation [IHT], Cyclists’ Touring Club
[CTC], Bicycle Association, & Department of Transport. (1996). Cycle
friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design. Godalming, UK:
Cyclists’ Touring Club.
Jacobsen, PL, Racioppi, F, & Rutter, H. (2009). Who owns the roads? How
motorised traffic discourages walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention, 15,
369-373. doi: 10.1136/ip.2009.022566.
Jensen, SU. (2008). Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: A before-after
study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 742-750. doi: 10.1016/j.
aap.2007.09.016.
Kingham, S, Taylor, K, & Koorey, G. (2011). Assessment of the type of cycling
infrastructure required to attract new cyclists. NZ Transport Agency Research
Report No. 449. Wellington: New Zealand.
Koorey, GF. (2005, October 14-15). The ‘On-again/Off-again’ debate about cycle
facilities. NZ Cycling Conference, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.
Koorey, G. (2007, November 1-2). Are you a cyclist or do you cycle? The
language of promoting cycling. NZ Cycling Conference, Napier, New
Zealand.
Koorey, G. (2011, March 27-30). Implementing lower speeds in New Zealand.
IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Koorey, G. (2012, February 22-24). Neighbourhood greenways: Invisible
infrastructure for walking and cycling. 2WALKandCYCLE Conference,
Hastings, New Zealand.
Koorey, GF. (2014, March 23-26). Investigating common patterns in New
Zealand cycling fatalities. IPENZ Transportation Group Conference,
Wellington, New Zealand.

279

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategies for change

Koorey, GF, & Mangundu, E. (2010, January 10-14). Effects on motor vehicle
behavior of color and width of bicycle facilities at signalized intersections.
89th Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington DC,
USA.
Koorey, G, Wilke, A, & Aussendorf, J. (2013, April 14-16). Assessment of the
effectiveness of narrow separators on cycle lanes. IPENZ Transportation
Group Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Lahausse, J, van Nes, N, Fildes, B, Langford, J, & Keall, M. (2009, November).
Assessing community attitudes to speed limits: Final report. Clayton, Australia:
Monash University Accident Research Centre.
Land Transport New Zealand [LTNZ]. (2004). Cycle network and route planning
guide. Wellington: Land Transport New Zealand. Retrieved 11 August
2015 from www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/cycle-network-and-route-planning.
Lee, A, & March, A. (2007). What is the economic contribution of cyclists compared
to car drivers in inner Melbourne’s shopping strips? (Master of Urban Planning
Thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia).
Lieswyn, J, Macbeth, A, Wilke, A, Ward, J, Ashford, J, Houghton, R, & Lloyd,
W. (2012, February 22-24). An illustrated lexicon of cycle facilities.
2WALKandCYCLE Conference, Hastings, New Zealand.
McDougall, B. (2011, August 19). Sydney’s cyclists ignore their $76 million
cycleway network. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 13 August 2015 from http://
www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/sydneys-cyclists-ignore-their-76-
million-cycleway-network/story-e6freuzi-1226117740032.
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat [MVW]. (2009). Cycling in the Netherlands.
The Hague, Netherlands: Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Ministry
of Transport, Public Works and Water Management).
Ministry of Transport [MOT]. (2010, March). Safer journeys: New Zealand’s
road safety strategy 2010-2020. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of
Transport.
National Association of City Transportation Officials [NACTO]. (2010).
Urban bikeway design guide. New York, US: National Association of City
Transportation Officials. Retrieved 11 August 2015 from http://nacto.org/
cities-for-cycling/design-guide.
Parkin, J, & Koorey, G. (2012). Network planning and infrastructure design.
In J Parkin (Ed.), Cycling and Sustainability (pp. 131-160). Bingley, UK:

280

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Spaces for cycling

Emerald Publishing. doi: 10.1108/S2044-9941(2012)0000001008.

Parsons, J, & Koorey, G. (2013, April 14-16). The effect of cycle lanes on cycle
numbers and safety. IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Dunedin,
New Zealand.
Patterson, F, Crowther, M, & Solly, P. (2003, October 10-11). From the city
to the outback – Next generation bicycle planning in South Australia.
Proceedings, NZ Cycling Conference 2003 — Cycling: Transport for Living
(pp. 109-124). Auckland, New Zealand: North Shore City.
Rosén, E, & Sander, U. (2009). Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact
speed. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41, 536-542. doi: 10.1016/j.
aap.2009.02.002.
Rosén, E, Stigson, H, & Sander, U. (2011). Literature review of pedestrian
fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 25-33. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.003.
State Bicycle Committee. (1977). Geelong bike plan: For the Victorian government.
Melbourne, Australia.
Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid [SWOV]. (2010).
Bicycle facilities on road segments and intersections of distributor roads.
Leidschendam, The Netherlands: Foundation for Road Safety Research.
Templeton, A. (2015, June 24). Adelaide City Council votes make changes
to Frome St bikeway to improve peak-hour traffic flow. The Advertiser.
Retrieved 13 August 2015 from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/
messenger/city/adelaide-city-council-votes-make-changes-to-frome-st-
bikeway-to-improve-peak-hour-traffic-flow/story-fni9lkxa-1227412008129.
Transportblog. (2014, January 20). Auckland cycling spend comparison [blog
post, Transportblog.co.nz]. Retrieved 11 August 2015 from http://
transportblog.co.nz/2014/01/20/auckland-cycling-spend-comparison.
Trumper, H. (2013). Slow zones: The pedestrian experience (Master of Engineering
in Transportation research report, Department of Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand).

281

This content downloaded from

114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 This content downloaded from
114.108.224.250 on Mon, 24 Feb 2025 15:43:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms