Written by James Ashton, Principal Engineer, Transport and Accessibility Planning
The Challenge Facing Local Authorities and Transport Professionals
On any typical day, a cursory glance at local news websites will reveal articles complaining about public money spent on cycle lanes that cyclists do not use. These stories often fuel public scepticism, influencing local authorities to hesitate on new projects and transport professionals to question their effectiveness. However, beyond the headlines, the reality is far more complex, with well-planned cycle lanes playing a crucial role in sustainable urban mobility.
The common concerns? That cycle lanes increase congestion, are underused, and are a waste of money. Whether accurate or not, these perceptions have real consequences: they can lead local authorities to hesitate on new projects and transport professionals to question the value of cycling infrastructure. Public perception can shape policy decisions, sometimes resulting in the removal of cycle lanes or a reluctance to expand networks.
However, well-planned cycle infrastructure is not optional; it is a core component of modern, sustainable transport planning. The challenge is ensuring that decision-makers hold their nerve and that professionals feel confident advocating for cycling as a long-term investment.
To counter these misconceptions and ensure cycle lanes remain a cornerstone of modern transport planning, decision-makers need clear, data-driven evidence. Here’s what we know:
Addressing the Three Key Misconceptions
Cycle lanes are not about “taking space away from cars.” They are a proven solution to congestion, pollution, and safety concerns. They increase cycling uptake, reduce car dependency, and improve urban mobility when implemented correctly.
Myth: Cycle lanes take space away from traffic, causing more congestion.
Fact: To ease congestion, we actually need fewer roads, not more.
One of the most common criticisms of cycle lanes is that they take away road space from motor vehicles, leading to increased congestion. However, this assumption ignores a fundamental principle of traffic engineering: induced demand. When more road space is allocated to cars, more people choose to drive, exacerbating congestion rather than alleviating it. A lot of evidence shows that when roads are built or widened, more traffic uses those roads and the surrounding routes. [Source: UK Government Report].
Conversely, when cities invest in high-quality cycle lanes, more people choose to cycle, reducing overall traffic volume.
A prime example is the closure of the Georges Pompidou Expressway along the Seine River for pedestrian use. The city saw increased cycling and walking while overall traffic volume decreased. [Source: Rapid Transition Alliance].
The same principle applies to cycle lanes:
Manchester’s Oxford Road Cycleway: After its completion, cycle traffic increased by 86%, proving that when safe infrastructure is provided, people will use it. [Source: Bike Life: Protected bike lanes will transform our cities]
London’s Cycle Superhighways: Within months of opening, cycle traffic increased by 50%, with over 5,000 daily riders on key routes [Source: Segregated Cycling Infrastructure Evidence Pack].
Rather than increasing congestion, cycle lanes offer viable alternatives to short car journeys—taking vehicles off the road and easing traffic flow.
Myth: Cycle Lanes a Waste of taxpayer money?
Fact: Every £1 spent on active travel generates £6 in economic benefits [Source: The economic benefits of walking and cycling – GOV.UK].
Another widespread misconception is that cycle lanes are an unnecessary expense, diverting funding from other essential infrastructure. However, studies show that cycle infrastructure provides an excellent return on investment. The Department for Transport (DfT) has found that for every £1 invested in cycling and walking, the economy benefits by up to £6. This is due to multiple factors, including reduced congestion, improved public health, and increased spending on local businesses. Additionally, cycle lanes require significantly less maintenance than roads designed for heavy vehicles, making them a cost-effective long-term solution. Far from being a waste of money, cycle lanes provide a strong return on investment. Cycle lanes are not a cost—they’re an investment.
Increasing sustainable travel, like cycling, and therefore reducing the number of cars on the road helps create a more livable urban environment in many ways.
- Air quality – traffic gives rise to high concentrations of NO2 and Particulate matter, resulting in poor health for people living near busy roads. Poor health places a cost on society that could be avoided with healthier environments.
- Congestion – has a cost to the economy (as well as being very annoying and inconvenient for everyone).
- Noise – Like poor air quality, excessive noise harms people’s health and well-being. People living near busy roads suffer due to the noise generated by traffic.
- Road Safety – large traffic volumes are often associated with poor road safety. Collisions cause misery and cost the economy millions each year.
- Greenhouse Gas emissions – contribute to climate change (enough said).
- Severance- large roads in urban environments result in Community Disruption, Reduced accessibility to amenities and services and social isolation.
Myth: Cyclists don’t actually use cycle lanes.
Fact: Cities that treat cycle lanes as a strategic investment—not an experiment—see long-term success.
Sceptics often argue that cycle lanes remain empty and unused. However, this is usually a symptom of poorly designed or disconnected infrastructure rather than a lack of demand.
Picture in your mind how you would cycle your commute. How much of the journey has a cycle lane that feels safe and comfortable. That lack of cycle lanes on most routes is enough to put people off cycling.
School streets and low-traffic neighbourhoods contribute to a feeling of comfort and safety for cyclists, resulting in a corresponding increase in people walking and cycling. During the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns resulted in a decrease in the number of people driving. This decrease in traffic corresponded to a huge increase in the number of people cycling.
We have seen that usage is rising dramatically in cities where cycling networks are well-planned and integrated.
Copenhagen: After decades of continuous investment in cycling infrastructure, 41% of all trips in the city are now made by bike, reducing congestion and pollution. [Source: What makes Copenhagen the world’s most bike-friendly city? | World Economic Forum]
Amsterdam: A world leader in cycling, with extensive cycle networks that have significantly increased cycling as a primary mode of transport.
Closer to home, one of the UK’s longest protected cycle routes is the Oxford/Wilmslow Road cycleway in Greater Manchester. This busy 7km route leads into central Manchester, passing through the University of Manchester campus. It was opened in two stages: first, Wilmslow Road, and then, the full route, including Oxford Road, closer to the city centre.
Following the completion of the Wilmslow Road section, the average number of daily cycle journeys along the cycleway increased by 86%, from 960 in March 2015 to 1,791 in March 2017. After the Oxford Road cycleway opened, the number of cyclists using the route regularly exceeded 5,000 per day, with a peak of 5,803 recorded in October [Source: Bike Life: Protected bike lanes will transform our cities – Sustrans.org.uk].
A similar trend was observed in central London. Within the first five months of opening the East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways, the number of cyclists using these routes increased by over 50%. This translates to 8,400 cyclists on Blackfriars Bridge and 7,000 on Victoria Embankment during the morning and evening peak hours. [Source: Segregating Cycling Infrastructure]
So yes, some cycle lanes are not well used. However, when investment is made to create a connected, protected network of cycle infrastructure, the number of people cycling can increase very significantly.
Why Local Authorities and Transport Professionals Should Stay the Course
Despite the short-term political pressures, local authorities and transport professionals must stay committed to delivering high-quality cycle infrastructure. The evidence is clear:
- Cycle lanes reduce congestion, not increase it—they shift people from cars to bikes.
- They strengthen local economies—bringing more footfall to businesses and lowering transport costs for residents.
- They improve public health—reducing air pollution and creating safer streets.
- Cities that treat cycle lanes as a strategic investment—not an experiment—see long-term success.
Public perception shapes political decisions, funding allocations, and long-term transport strategies. Ensuring cycle lanes remain part of the urban transport agenda requires strong infrastructure and a compelling public narrative.
What Should Local Authorities and Transport Professionals Do Next?
Frame the conversation better: Cycle lanes should be positioned as part of a wider transport network, not a niche cycling issue.
Use clear evidence to counter misinformation: Data from London, Manchester, and Europe shows cycle lanes work—let’s use it.
Push for connected networks, not isolated lanes: Standalone routes are less effective; full cycling networks bring real benefits.
This is not about responding to complaints—it’s about leading the conversation on the future of transport. Local authorities can proactively shape public perception through clear communication, public engagement initiatives, and successful case studies demonstrating the long-term benefits of cycle infrastructure.
Now is the time to invest in a smarter, healthier, and more sustainable transport network.
Contact James Ashton to learn more about cycle lanes and active travel.
Find out more about our expertise in Placemaking.