Current transport trends in
Ireland are unsustainable; as an example 57% of commuters drive to work, while
only 1.9% cycle1. The primary reason for this relatively low amount
of cycling has been attributed to the lack of cycling infrastructure2.
The establishment of a National
Cycle Network (NCN) has been proposed by the Department of Transport, Tourism
and Sport to correct this infrastructural deficit and lead to a
five-fold increase in cycling trips.
The proposed NCN connects major urban centres and opens up extensive rural
routes.
In Ireland, the National Roads Authority Project Management Guidelines
(NRAPMG) are used for the route selection of national roads, however,
significant amendments to this methodology are required for the route selection
of national cycle routes. These relate to the design nature of cycling routes –
less area required, poor soil conditions may be considered etc – and the
specific route corridor criteria.
This research features a case-study of the Mullingar-Galway corridor, a
140 km long corridor which connects a major town in the midlands of Ireland
(Mullingar) to Galway City which is located on the west coast. This corridor
includes some relatively large population centres, various tourist attractions,
possible route facilitators (e.g. disused railway, bogs) and major constraints
(e.g. River Shannon, Irelands longest river). It could therefore generate a
large number of route options.
Using this case-study in conjunction with international best practice
on cycling route selection, a Cycling Route Assessment Matrix (CRAM) for the
roll out of the NCN in Ireland is being developed. CRAM will be used to
identify and reduce route options by (i) identifying possible routes within a study area, (ii) reducing the
number of route options to those feasible route options and (iii) highlighting
a preferred route(s). The assessment matrix will make reference to:
(i)
Identifying areas of large population density
to traverse, particularly those with demographics and topography favouring
cycling, using GIS tools similar to a method in New Zealand3
(ii)
Considering
CROW’s4 requirements for a cycle network (cohesion,
directness, safety, comfort and attractiveness) for the three key NCN user
groups (commuter cyclists, cycle tourists, leisure cyclists) to maximise usage,
user satisfaction and economic benefits
(iii)
Quantifying these requirements using models
such as the Dutch Cyclist’s Union’s Fietbalans5 (Bicycle Balance)
evaluation criteria
(iv)
Using state-owned lands (disused railways,
active railways, canal towpaths, forest roads and bogland) as route
facilitators to minimise cost and traffic interaction
(v)
Considering the cost of construction and
maintenance, how value for money can be found and how cost can be recouped by
harnessing the various economic benefits of cycling
(vi)
Integration with public transport and policy