Cycle City Ambition Programme Baseline and Interim Report Report to the Department for Transport, March 2017 Lynn Sloman, Anna Goodman, Ian Taylor, Joana Maia, Rachel Riley, Sam Dennis, Kristine Farla, Lisa Hopkinson and Beth Hiblin Project name: Cycle City Ambition Programme: Baseline and Interim Report Client Reference: Contract SO17265 between DfT & Technopolis/ Transport for Quality of Life/ Sustrans Client: Department for Transport Date: 28 March 2017; revised 2 June and 12 September 2017 Version: 170912 / FINAL Citation The preferred citation for this report is: Sloman L, Goodman A, Taylor I, Maia J, Riley R, Dennis S, Farla K, Hopkinson L and Hiblin B (2017) Cycle City Ambition Programme: Baseline and Interim Report Client disclaimer Should this report be published by the Department for Transport (DfT), the findings and recommendations remain those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the DfT. While these parties have made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, DfT do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information, and cannot accept liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains. Acknowledgements Thank you to officers from all the Cycle City Ambition (CCA) projects who provided information and help with this report. Cover photograph: Transport for Greater Manchester Contact Transport for Quality of Life Ltd T: 01654 781358 E: [email protected] W: http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PART I: INTRODUCTION, EVALUATION DESIGN AND PROGRAMME OVERVIEW 3 1. Introduction 3 1.1 Context for the evaluation 3 1.2 Structure of this report 3 1.3 Evaluation design and research questions 4 2. Overview of the CCA Programme 8 Birmingham 8 Cambridge 9 Greater Manchester 10 Newcastle 11 Norwich 12 Oxford 13 West of England 14 West Yorkshire 15 PART II: EVIDENCE FROM CYCLE FLOW DATA 16 3. Methodology for analysis of cycle flow data 16 3.1 First stage data checking and estimation of cycle flows from ACCs and manual 16 counts 3.2 Calculation of year-on-year change for groups of ACCs 16 3.3 Second stage data checking and sensitivity tests 17 3.4 Approach to selection of comparison groups of ACCs 19 3.5 Other approaches to define the counterfactual or enable attribution 19 4. Levels of cycling in Birmingham 20 4.1 City-wide trends in cycling 20 4.2 CCA intervention: canal towpath upgrades package 21 4.3 Trends in cycling for a comparison group of ACC sites 24 4.4 Summary points 31 5. Levels of cycling in Cambridge 32 5.1 City-wide trends in cycling 32 5.2 CCA intervention 1: Huntingdon Road 36 5.3 CCA intervention 2: Hills Road 38 5.4 CCA intervention 3: Trumpington Road 38 5.5 Trends in cycling for a comparator ACC site 39 5.6 Summary points 40 6. Levels of cycling in Greater Manchester 41 6.1 City-wide trends in cycling 41 6.2 CCA intervention 1: Wilmslow Road / Oxford Road Cycleway 44 6.3 CCA intervention 2: Broughton Cycleway 46 6.4 Trends in cycling for a comparison group of ACC sites 47 6.5 Summary points 50 Cycle City Ambition Programme: Baseline and Interim Report i | Page 7. Levels of cycling in Newcastle 52 7.1 City-wide trends in cycling 52 7.2 CCA intervention 1: Gosforth Corridor 54 7.3 CCA intervention 2: John Dobson Street 59 7.4 Summary points 60 8. Levels of cycling in Norwich 61 8.1 City-wide trends in cycling 61 8.2 CCA intervention: Pink Pedalway 65 8.3 Summary points 71 9. Levels of cycling in Oxford 72 9.1 City-wide trends in cycling 72 9.2 CCA intervention: The Plain roundabout 76 9.3 Summary points 80 10. Levels of cycling in West of England 81 10.1 City-wide trends in cycling 81 10.2 CCA intervention 1: Filwood Quietway 82 10.3 CCA intervention 2: North-South Quietway 84 10.4 CCA intervention 3: East-West Quietway 85 10.5 Identification of comparison sites 86 10.6 Summary points 87 11. Levels of cycling in West Yorkshire 88 11.1 City-wide trends in cycling 88 11.2 CCA intervention: Leeds-Bradford Cycle Superhighway 91 11.3 Summary points 96 PART III: EVIDENCE FROM SECONDARY DATASETS 97 12. Selection of comparison groups for routine datasets 97 12.1 Definition of intervention local authorities 97 12.2 Definition of comparison groups 97 12.3 Similarities of comparison groups to the intervention group in pre-CCA trends 100 12.4 Recommendations regarding comparison groups 103 13. Active People Survey: baseline results and preliminary trend 104 13.1 Baseline cycling levels across the eight cities 104 13.2 Methods for looking at trends in the Active People Survey 105 13.3 Results: preliminary trends in the Active People Survey 106 14. Propensity to cycle across demographic and socio-economic groups 113 14.1 Decision to focus on ‘propensity to cycle’ rather than ‘proportion of cyclists’ 113 14.2 Summary of methods 113 14.3 Baseline results: propensity to cycle by demographic and socio-economic 114 characteristics 14.4 Propensity to cycle across demographic groups: trend over time 119 Cycle City Ambition Programme: Baseline and Interim Report ii | Page 15. Total physical activity levels among cyclists 120 15.1 Summary of methods 120 15.2 Results: physical activity levels among cyclists 121 PART IV: REVIEW OF CYCLIST USER SURVEYS 123 16. Preparation for analysis of Cyclist User Surveys 123 16.1 Introduction 123 16.2 Research Question 1 124 16.3 Research Question 3 125 16.4 Research Question 4 127 17. Conclusions and early findings 130 Appendix A: ACC data availability in the CCA cities 132 Appendix B: Supplementary data on ‘propensity to cycle’ and ‘proportion of 139 cyclists’ analyses Appendix C: Physical activity among cyclists, stratified by CCA city 147 Abbreviations ACC Automatic Cycle Counter HEAT Health and Economic Assessment Tool ALS Active Lives Survey KSI Killed or seriously injured AMDT Annual Median Daily Total MMDT Monthly Median Daily Total APS Active People Survey MMWDT Monthly Median Weekday Total AUE Annual Usage Estimate MMWEDT Monthly Median Weekend Day Total CCA Cycle City Ambition Cycle City Ambition Programme: Baseline and Interim Report iii | Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Scheme-level evaluation The evaluation of the Cycle City Ambition (CCA) programme will involve ‘internal comparisons’ of intervention sites and non-intervention sites within each of the eight cities. For each city, automatic and manual cycle count data will be analysed for between one and three cycle infrastructure schemes, to assess to what extent they result in an increase in cycling. In most of the cities, the change in cycling volume on the infrastructure schemes will be compared with the change in cycling volume at one or several comparison sites, which are similar to the locations where the infrastructure is being improved, but will not receive any intervention. In all, 14 schemes will be evaluated. These schemes comprise a significant proportion of the CCA programme in each of the cities, costing between 18% and 66% of the DfT grant. Five of the cities have already completed the schemes that will be evaluated, during Phase 1 of the CCA programme. Two cities have partially completed their schemes, and one has not yet started construction of the schemes that will be evaluated. The schemes to be evaluated include: two examples of an extended ‘cycle superhighway’ along a main road radial corridor in a major city four examples of shorter sections of segregated cycle route along a main road three examples of a ‘mixed strategic cycle route’ that combines quiet roads, routes through green space, and short sections of segregated path alongside more major roads three examples of city-centre schemes one example of a comprehensive package of off-road improvements on a network of canal towpaths one example of treatment of a difficult junction in a small city. This baseline and interim report confirms which sites will form the comparators for each of the schemes and describes cycling trends (pre-intervention and, where relevant, post- intervention) from automatic cycle counters and/or manual counts at the infrastructure schemes and at the comparison sites. Early findings suggest that some of the schemes have already resulted in an increase in cycling volumes, although it is not possible to say at this stage to what extent this is due to more cycle trips being made, or existing cyclists changing their route to take advantage of the new infrastructure. Other schemes do not at this stage show clear evidence of an increase in cycling, but this may be partly due to limited post-intervention data. Cycle City Ambition Programme: Baseline and Interim Report 1 | Page City-level and programme-level evaluation The report describes ‘city-wide’ cycling trends in each of the eight cities, drawing on automatic and manual cycle count data and analysis of data on participation in cycling from the Active People Survey and 2011 Census. It also documents programme-level evidence on participation in cycling. Trends at the programme-level as shown by analysis of the Active People Survey will be compared in future reports with trends in three comparison groups of local authorities (‘national’, ‘matched’ and ‘unfunded’) and these comparison groups are defined and the baseline data for them is also reported. In six of the cities, automatic and manual count data suggests an upward trend in cycling volumes, which pre-dates the CCA programme. However, analysis of the Active People Survey does not provide convincing evidence of any programme-level increase in cycling participation at this stage.