Bike Infrastructure

Beyond Bikelash: How to Frame Active Transport Projects for Broader Support

One of the biggest political challenges in improving our transport systems is the implementation of bike lanes, which often cause significant concern (known as bikelash). Therefore, I was interested in this post on some research from attitudes in Ireland, and this article in The Conversation based on this research about support for cycle lanes based on people's worldview.

Key Takeaways

• The research in Limerick, Ireland, examined 322 public submissions regarding a 2.6km cycle route. Supportive submissions outnumbered those opposed by over 2 to 1, but nearly half of people held mixed views.
• Top reasons for support were:
  • Safety for cyclists (49%)
  • The need for the infrastructure (47%)
  • Environmental benefits (32%) and
  • Traffic reduction.
• Top reasons for opposition were:
  • Removal of car parking (76%)
  • Impact on access (75%)
  • Safety concerns for pedestrians and vulnerable residents (48%) and
  • A lack of proper consultation.
• Commuters, parents and cyclists were in favour. Business owners (weakly) and advocates for the elderly (strongly) were opposed. Residents were evenly split.
• Recommendations for reducing opposition to projects:
  • Prioritise total safety - cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable residents.
  • Solve parking and access - provide clear, convenient and alternative parking.
  • Communicate benefits - how it helps the entire community.
• The conversation article discussed how the support for a transport infrastructure project depended heavily on a person's political ideologies.
• Support for the welfare state is the strongest predictor of support for increasing public transport spending, widening pavements, and creating pedestrian high streets.
• Political party preference plays the biggest role in shaping opinions on cycle lanes, electric car charging points, and building new car parks.
• Two policies stand out as the most politically charged: narrowing roads to widen pavements and building new cycle lanes.
• People who are highly interested in politics are much more likely to filter their views on green transport investment through their broader ideological and partisan commitments.
• Framing green infrastructure projects purely in terms of collective impacts, such as lowering pollution, rather than private interests, may only resonate with people who already support that kind of public investment.
• Rather than focusing only on social equity or environmental impact, campaigns could highlight individual interests, such as how cycle lanes can reduce congestion, cut commuting costs, or boost local high streets. These are benefits that don’t necessarily rely on a belief in state intervention to feel relevant or persuasive.

Comment

The Conversation article aligns with my recent blog on why Conservatives should champion public and active transport.

Politicians know that active transport projects can be controversial, and so many stay away from them, even when they think they are the right thing to do.

One of the things I am working on is writing a playbook on how to make active transport, not just politically easier, but actually a political win, so that the incentives for investing in active transport significantly increase.

What Next?

Are you designing and communicating active transport projects in a way that aligns with this research?

Demand-Responsive Transport

Cracking The Demand-Responsive Transport Code

​This research looks at how the neighbourhood, built environment, land use, and service design attributes affect demand-responsive transport services (referred to as microtransit in this research).

Key Takeaways

• Microtransit systems can be implemented in various ways and serve different purposes. Some systems are designed to complement existing fixed-route transit, while others replace fixed-route bus services or provide transit coverage in previously underserved areas.
• Many operational attributes also vary across microtransit implementations, including pick-up and drop-off policies, the option to preschedule trips, and the expected waiting time for on-demand trips.
• The research examined five microtransit systems operating across distinct jurisdictions in North Carolina (NC), each located in different geographic regions of the state.
• The socioeconomic characteristics of a neighbourhood are significant predictors of microtransit demand. Areas with more female, younger, carless, and low-income populations are associated with a higher number of microtransit passenger trips.
• Residential density is positively correlated with microtransit demand, with a 1% increase in density contributing to a 0.17% increase in passenger trips. However, this correlation doesn't hold when microtransit primarily serves low-density areas and acts as a feeder service to fixed-route buses.
• In terms of service design, waiting time, service hours, and pick-up/drop-off policies exert the largest influence on ridership.
• A 1% increase in the number of service hours in a given month is associated with a 0.18–0.40% increase in the number of passenger trips.
• Waiting time significantly influences microtransit demand. A 1% increase in the waiting time is associated with 0.17–0.25% fewer passengers.
• Offering curb-to-curb service is associated with a 56.6–83.8% increase in passenger trips, compared to requiring riders to walk to a nearby intersection or other pick-up/drop-off location.
• Higher fares are associated with lower microtransit demand. However, the influence of the cost of each trip is less pronounced than that of other service attributes, such as waiting times and service hours.
• Microtransit demand increases as the service matures over time.
• Public agencies should develop and implement targeted outreach and engagement initiatives to support elderly users in navigating microtransit services.

Comment

There are mixed views on whether microtransit should be part of the public transport mix, due to the high costs it incurs (see here from Andrew Miller).

However, they are now being supported by Autonomous Vehicles (see h​ere), which may reduce costs and make them more financially sustainable for transport agencies.

What next?

Do you have a strategy for the future of microtransit in your jurisdiction? Does this research suggest you need to change your existing microtransit offering?

Infrastructure

The Waterloo Playbook: How to Build Affordable Light Rail

In much of the Anglosphere, the costs of building transport infrastructure are much higher than elsewhere. Therefore, I was interested in this YouTube video on how Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, built its light rail cheaply and the lessons that can be learned.

Key Takeaways

• The 19km light rail system, which opened in 2019, connects two malls, two downtown areas, two universities, and a train station.
• The project was built for around $44m per km. That compares favourably with other light rail projects in North America, which range from three to over five times more expensive.
• This is still more expensive than other places. For example, Finland built a recent light rail for around $20m per km.
• Key lessons:
  • They were very clear on their scope of work. They knew exactly what they wanted and where stations were going to go. They executed the planning stage very well and didn't rush to construction.
  • They spent time and money getting the original plan and construction agreement right.
  • Adapting and reusing existing corridors, and getting rules changed. They put the route down an existing freight rail corridor. They also used a power transmission corridor. This accounts for approximately one-third of the route.
  • The project was supported by multiple levels of government, which facilitated permitting and utility relocation.
  • Managing and reducing risk. The private consortium (PPP) was responsible for most cost overruns. The PPP was responsible for design, finance, build, operate and maintenance. The solid scope of work also helped in this regard.
  • Pricing has changed, and the PPP would now be more expensive.
  • Designing a no-frills system. Simple and standardised stations. They compromised on active transport facilities (e.g. parking) because the land acquisition required would have been very expensive.
  • The LRT was sold politically by explaining how it would mean less congestion and wouldn't need bigger roads, saving over $300m in road construction costs.

Comment

This project followed what is becoming a standard playbook for reducing costs: getting the planning right upfront, achieving political alignment and standardisation.

However, although using existing corridors has been done elsewhere, running alongside a freight rail line and getting the rules changed to do so was innovative.

I also appreciated the political arguments for the light rail - reduced congestion and savings in building roads.

What next?

Do you have a light rail project in the works? Are you following the lessons learnt from Waterloo?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​Bicycle and Free Car Parking Availability at Trip Destinations​
• ​Driving Change: Adaptation Actions for Urban Mobility – Catalogue of Measures​
• ​German rail reform report published​

Blog

Reimagining Transport Project Peer Reviews

This week, my blog looked at how we can improve peer reviews of transport projects.

Innovation

Beta Launch of Digital Traffic Regulation Orders (D-TRO) in the UK

​

Traffic regulation orders (TROs) are legal documents that regulate or restrict the use of public roads in the UK. They are now going digital.

Tool

How to Evaluate Street Transformations Near Schools

​This handbook provides specialised guidance on evaluating street transformations near schools to measure impact, gather stories, and champion safer, healthier, and more joyful streets for kids.