Cycle track

Levels of bicycle traffic . Cities which have built cycle tracks have reported increases in levels of cycling. In the United States, an academic analysis of eight cycle tracks found that they had increased bike traffic on the street by 75 percent within one year of installation. Rider surveys indicated that 10 percent of riders after installation would have chosen a different mode for that trip without the cycle track, and 25 percent said they were biking more in general since the installation of the cycle track. However, scientific research indicates that different groups of cyclists show varying preferences of which aspects of cycling infrastructure are most relevant when choosing a specific cycling route over another; thus these different preferences need to be accounted for in order to maximize utilization of new cycling infrastructure. A 2015 study of a street in Toronto, Canada where cycle tracks replaced a painted cycle lane involved a survey of cyclists. Results reported 38% would use other travel modes than cycling before the redevelopment (most of whom would take transit). An improvement to safety was the most commonly cited reason. Safety Recent studies generally affirm that segregated cycle tracks have a better safety record between intersections than cycling on major roads in traffic. The increase in cycling caused by cycle tracks may lead to a "safety in numbers" effect though some contributors caution against this hypothesis. Older studies tended to come to negative conclusions about mid-block cycle track safety. The implications for road safety of cycle tracks at intersections is disputed. Studies generally show an increase in collisions at junctions, especially where cyclists are travelling in the direction opposite to the flow of traffic (e.g. on two-way cycle tracks). Protected intersection designs generally improve safety records over non-protected junction types. == Specifications ==

Netherlands The Dutch guidance for cycle traffic specifies that one-way cycle paths should be a minimum width of 2 metres. United Kingdom The LTN 1/20 guidance covers cycle infrastructure design in England and Northern Ireland. LTN 1/20 states that one-way cycle tracks should be a minimum of 1.5-2.5 metres depending on the number of cyclists. Two-way cycle tracks should be a minimum of 2-4 m, depending on the number of cyclists. Cycling by Design covers cycle infrastructure design in Scotland. It specifies a width of minimum width varying from 1.5 to 2.5 metres for one-way tracks and between 2 and 4 metres for two-way tracks. Shared pedestrian tracks should only be used if there are less than 300 cycles per hour at the peak hour and it should be 4 metres (2.5 metres at minimum). == Gallery ==

File:Separated bike lane - Washington DC (49172814558).jpg|alt=A two-way separated bike lane in Washington, D.C. with parked cars acting as a barrier between bicyclists and traffic|A two-way separated bike lane in Washington, D.C., with parked cars acting as a barrier between bicyclists and traffic File:Bicycle lane with concrete barrier ottawa 2011.jpeg|alt=Cycle track with concrete barriers in downtown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada on Laurier Avenue in 2011.|Cycle track with concrete barriers in downtown Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on Laurier Avenue in 2011 File:DNK bicycle light 1.jpg|Separate traffic light for motorists and cyclists on cycle track in Denmark File:Bicycle lanes in intersection ottawa 2011.jpeg|alt=Green cycle lane transitioning into a cycle track with concrete barriers after an intersection in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Laurier Avenue) in 2011.|Green cycle lane transitioning into a cycle track with concrete barriers after an intersection in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Laurier Avenue), in 2011 ==See also==