Comparison of methods of assessing cycle routes

Parkin, J.; Coward, A.

Abstract

This paper compares the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) Guidelines for Cycle Audit and Cycle Review with two methods of assessment based on research into perceptions of risk by cycle users in a study of fifteen routes from ten origins into Chester, the county town of Cheshire. One method uses risk ratings for components of a journey and the other uses variables based on generic features of the journey. The most direct route and a reasonable alternative were analysed for five origins. A large range of review scores from the IHT, risk rating and generic feature methods was estimated, demonstrating widely varying circumstances for cycle traffic including routes that were both heavily motor trafficked or were traffic free. Very strong correlation was found between the risk rating method and the IHT method (20?877); moderate correlation was found between the generic feature method and the IHT method (20?564). Based on the ease of use of the risk rating and generic feature methods, it is recommended that these are used more extensively for cycle route assessment. It is also recommended that the IHT guidelines are developed further to allow for a full and proper estimate of the impact of large junctions on routes. Further, it is recommended that more work be undertaken on the perceptions of risk of cycle users in order to determine coefficients for a wider range of carriageway and junction types.

• Journal Article Type: Review
• Publication Date: Mar 1, 2009
• Journal: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer
• Print ISSN: 0965-0903
• Electronic ISSN: 1751-7699
• Publisher: Thomas Telford
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 162
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 7-14
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2009.162.1.7
• Keywords: roads and highways, design methods and aids, transport planning
• Public URL: https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/1004889
• Publisher URL: http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/article/10.1680/muen.2009.162.1.7