Enhancing cycling accessibility: evaluating the effectiveness of new cycling infrastructure in an expanding urban area in Sydney, Australia

Abstract

This paper describes an evaluation of the effectiveness of a key piece of cycling infrastructure in a sub-regional city in Sydney, Australia. Despite significant investment and political support, the usage of the infrastructure is low and variable. Direct experiences and observations revealed substantial design and implementation deficiencies, indicating that even with good policy intentions, cyclists’ needs may not be well-addressed and hard-won investment may be wasted. This situation could be common in other car-centric cities lacking a robust cycling culture. Our detailed research assessment, also drawing on the lens of Sustainable Mobility Theory (which emphasises the importance of safe, accessible and environmentally sustainable transport systems) pinpoints specific deficiencies and provides recommendations for improvement. Ten criteria were identified from the literature as important to effective cycling infrastructure: route pathing, mode separation, gradients, widths, speed humps, sightlines, intersection design, signage, end-of-trip facilities and bicycle counters. Metrics were established to guide both on-ground and desk-top surveys. It is anticipated that this process, with local variations, will be useful in similar situations elsewhere. Several reasons were identified for the low cycling volumes and the failure of the route to meet initial policy objectives of increasing the modal split towards cycling. These include overly steep gradients, unsafe widths and sightlines, lack of priority at intersections and circuitous paths. Recommendations for action to improve effectiveness were developed. The discussion highlights the need to address associated organisational and political structural limitations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.