Introduction

Cycle infrastructure, especially cycle tracks and cycleways, have commanded significant attention in cycle planning. They have, for some, been seen as a ‘silver bullet’ to promote utility cycling since, when separated from vehicle flows, they can shield cyclists from motor traffic thereby improving road safety. For this reason, the maxim that ‘build it and they will come’ (Cervero et al, 2013) has developed to refer to the potential for mode shift associated with infrastructure development. It is not surprising that cycle tracks and cycleways are held in such high regard since studies have found that concerns over road safety are a major barrier against utility cycling (Winters et al, 2011; Lee et al, 2015). Buehler and Dill (2015: 1) surveying a broad literature on ‘bikeway infrastructure and cycling levels … [conclude that] Most studies suggest a positive relationship between bikeway networks or aspects of the network and cycling levels.’

While some studies exhibit confidence in the role of infrastructure in stimulating cycling, others urge caution. Handy et al, (2014) point to a range of methodological challenges in establishing cause and effect relationships. For example, ‘communities where cycling is seen as normal are more likely to invest in cycling infrastructure which in turn tends to reinforce the cycling norm’ (Handy et al, 2014: 10). In this instance the direction of causality is unclear: is it culture or infrastructure (Dill and Carr, 2003; Emanuel, 2012)? Rather than this binary approach, Aldred (2017) has sought out a more nuanced understanding of the determinants of everyday cycling in which infrastructure, culture and contexts of cycling interact in complex ways.

Other scholarship suggests that infrastructure could have a ‘darker side’ in spite of the road safety benefits, as illustrated by Koglin in relation to rationality and planning (Chapter 3, this volume) or Whitelegg on safety and risk (Chapter 5, this volume). For example, various studies conducted in the United States have shown how cycle infrastructure development projects have been associated with processes of neighbourhood gentrification (Hoffman and Lugo, 2014; Stehlin, 2014; Flanagan et al, 2016; Lubitow, 2016).