Cyclists occupy a special place among road users. On one hand they are generally barred from using footpaths, but on the roadway travel at slower speeds than most other traffic and occupy less than a full traffic lane. They are seen as an irritant by some road users, are often given inadequate lateral clearance when overtaken and are forced to give way to larger vehicles. Conversely, some cyclists infringe traffic regulations by using pedestrian phases at signals and in other ways take advantage of their size and manoeuvrability.

Cyclists are particularly vulnerable in a collision, and face risks that other vehicles are not subjected to. They are less visible than larger vehicles and are vulnerable to roadside hazards such as parked vehicles and road surface irregularities. On the open road they are susceptible to side draft from fast moving trucks.

On the other hand, cycling is the most energy efficient of all land transport modes, is quiet and non-polluting, is a healthy form of exercise (apart from the crash risk), and has become increasingly popular in recent years with improvement in cycle technology and the higher profile of sport and recreational cycling. Promotion of cycling is generally regarded as a good thing by city planners and of all transport modes except walking, comes closest to being truly sustainable over the long term. In cities where traffic congestion is forcing demand management solutions, increased cycling offers a possible contribution to a management strategy.

However, it is difficult to justify the provision of cycle facilities on conventional benefit/cost criteria. Special purpose cycle facilities can be expensive to construct, and where there is no existing viable cycle network, the demand for improving cycle facilities may be difficult to substantiate. Often, there is difficulty in creating space for a dedicated cycle lane without reducing other traffic lane widths or encroaching upon the footpath. Cycles and buses may compete for kerbside lane space.

Neither are cyclists unanimous when articulating their needs. There is a wide range of age and ability from school children to the elderly to be catered for. Some cycle groups would prefer that other road users be tamed into giving cyclists due courtesy in their full use of the carriageway. Others call for special provision to be made for cyclists.

Cycles are not licensed and attract no road user charges. In a road pricing framework their lack of financial contribution may tell against any purposeful provision.

Pedestrians and cyclists are attributed with time values similar to car drivers, although they will seldom be accounted in a project evaluation. Cycle lanes, cycle ways and cycle parks are recognised as road projects and so are evaluated under the PEM procedures. Promotion of cycling may be construed as an ATR project where it provides an alternative to the provision or maintenance of roading, that is where the project reduces the demand for roadspace. In this respect it is no different to bus transport. Provision of hire bicycles would seem to be the only category that would fit within the ATR definition.

Transfund’s procedures must not be inconsistent with Land Transport Strategies, which frequently make reference to promotion of cycling as a mode of transport. However, this requirement does not put any obligation on Transfund to actively promote cycle usage.

Three cycle lane projects evaluated under the PEM have been provided as examples. All three projects achieved the Transfund cut-off, yielding BCRs of 13, 9 and 6. All three projects were for network improvements of cycleways and relied on a projected 20% cyclist accident reduction for project benefits. The accident reduction appears to have been calculated on an urban area-wide basis from evidence supplied by the traffic engineering consultants. None of the projects attempted to quantify modal shifts from motor vehicles to cycling or the consequent changes in VOC and travel time costs.

SKM provided a working paper on guidelines for cycling facilities. The paper advocated a "return to the basic principles of transport planning" rather than attempt to evaluate cycleways using a benefit-cost approach. The suggestion was to set a target for cycle usage as a proportion of trips and then evaluate cycle facility proposals according to their contribution to this goal, against a number of transport planning criteria.

The paper came in for some criticism for inadequate definition of terms and for an assertion that "bicycle planning is in its infancy". It was pointed out that the Geelong Bike Plan 1980 was a landmark project and a model for later efforts. (The provision of segregated cycleways in a new town setting can be traced back at least as far as Stevenage U.K. (1972) and from similar models in Scandinavia.) However, as was pointed out, the usefulness of segregation through cycle lanes and cycle ways depends on circumstances and is seldom likely to provide a complete or the best solution.

Another area of concern was that cycle projects tend to concentrate on measures to encourage cycle use but ignore measures to discourage use of other motor vehicles of a nature that discourages cycling – traffic calming being a particular example. Improvement of conditions for cyclists and pedestrians can become part of general area wide environmental improvements at the cost of some reduced mobility for motor traffic

Transfund guidelines for the evaluation of cycle projects should be consistent with its social cost benefit analysis framework. As cycle route improvements are already being successfully funded under the PEM procedures, there does not appear to be any need to consider other approaches such as multi-criteria analysis or goal achievement.

The guidelines should not attempt to be a manual on planning for cyclists. While such a manual could be useful, this is not the place of the PEM. However, useful references on cycle planning may be included selectively in a reference list.

Aspects where useful guidelines could potentially be provided are:

• Effect of general and specific cycle way and cycle route improvements on accident reduction, in urban and rural environments – which may find a place in Appendix A6;

• The extent of modal transfer from motor vehicle to cycle that can be anticipated when the environment for cycling is improved;

• Effects of modal transfers on traffic congestion, depending on the form of cycle facility and consequent air and noise emissions reduction;

• How to deal with travel time value and vehicle operating cost effects of modal transfers – bearing in mind that this groups of travellers must exhibit a higher WTP for a cycle trip than a car trip for them to make the change;

• Other intangible benefits of cycle projects that could be considered as part of the evaluation – such as health benefits;

• Whether cycle projects should be submitted as area wide network improvements or as isolated cycle improvements, or either;

• Synergies between the evaluation of cycle projects, the evaluation of walking projects and environmental management projects in general..

Scope of work to be undertaken will include:

• Selective overseas literature search, direct international contacts and review of N.Z. information sources on cycle project planning and evaluation, concentrating on the above topics;
• Preparation of a working paper and draft additions/amendments to the PEM for the evaluation of cycle projects